Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arciiive 

in  20(5?  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/criticalnomadridOOvandrich 


NEW  GUIDES  TO  OLD  MASTERS 
By  John  C.  Van  Dtkb 


/  I.  London — National  Gallery,  Wallace  Collection. 
With  a  General  Introduction  and  Bibliog- 
raphy for  the  Series net  $1.00 

/      II.    Paris — Louvre net      .76 

/  III.    Amsterdam — Bijks  Museum^ 

The  Hague — Boyal  Gallery    >boiuid  together  .  net      .75 
Haarlem — Hals  Museum       ) 
IV.     Brussels — Boyal  Museum 
Antwerp — Boyal  Museum 
V.    Munich— Old  Pinacothek      ^ 

Frankfort — S taedel  Institute  >  bound  together  .  net    1.00 
Cassel — Boyal  Gallery  ) 

VI.     Berlin — Kaiser-Friedrich 

Museum  J>  bound  together  .  net    1.00 

Dresden — Boyal  Gallery 
/  VII.     Vienna — ^Imperial  Gallery 

Budapest — Museiun  of  Fine  J'bovmd  together  .  net    1.00 
Arts 
VIII.    St.  Petersburg— Uerwltage net      .75 

IX.     Venice — Academy  |  k«„„^  <^«„a*fc««     «»*    i  nn 

n^r-T        -r.         T.  iji  T.       It  abound  together  .  net    1.00 
Milan — Brera,  Poldi-Pezzoli  ) 

X.    Florence — ^Ufflzi,  Pitti,  Academy      .     ...  In  Press 

XI.    Borne — ^Vatican,  Borghese  Gallery   .     ...   In  Press 

XII.    Madrid— Prado net      .75 


>  boimd  together  .  net      .75 


THE  PRADO 


Photograph  by  Aticlersuii,  Rom 


VELASQUEZ:       LAS    MENINAS 
The  Prado,  Madrid 


NEW     GUIDES      TO      OLD      MASTERS 


MADRID 


CRITICAL  NOTES  ON  THE   PRADO 


BY 

JOHN  C.  yAN  DYKE 

ACTHOB  or  "aBT  fob  ABt's  sake,"   "the  meaning  or  PICTUBCS," 

"hibtoby  of  painting,"  "old  dutch  and 

FLEIOSH   llASTEBS,"   ETC. 


NEW  YORK 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 


COPTBIGHT,   1914,   BT 

CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


Published  June,  1914 


»^:  '<^^U  '.  i 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

There  are  numerous  guide-books,  catalogues,  and 
histories  of  the  European  galleries,  but,  unfortunately 
for  the  gallery  visitor,  they  are  either  wholly  descrip- 
tive of  obvious  facts  or  they  are  historical  and  ar- 
chaeological about  matters  somewhat  removed  from  art 
itself.  In  them  the  gist  of  a  picture — its  value  or  mean- 
ing as  art — is  usually  passed  over  in  silence.  It  seems 
that  there  is  some  need  of  a  guide  that  shall  say  less 
about  the  well-worn  saints  and  more  about  the  man 
behind  the  paint-brush;  that  shall  deal  with  pictures 
from  the  painter's  point  of  view,  rather  than  that  of 
the  ecclesiastic,  the  archaeologist,  or  the  literary  ro- 
mancer; that  shall  have  some  sense  of  proportion  in 
the  selection  and  criticism  of 'pictures;  that  shall  have 
a  critical  basis  for  discrimination  between  the  good  and 
the  bad;  and  that  shall,  for  these  reasons,  be  of  ser- 
vice to  the  travelling  public  as  well  as  to  the  art  student. 

This  series  of  guide-books  attempts  to  meet  these 
requirements.  They  deal  only  with  th6  so-called  "old 
masters."  When  the  old  masters  came  upon  the 
scene,  flourished,  and  ceased  to  exist  may  be  deter- 
mined by  their  spirit  as  well  as  by  their  dates.  In 
Italy  the  tradition  of  the  craft  had  been  established 
before  Giotto  and  was  carried  on  by  Benozzo,  Botti- 


393599 


vi  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

celli,  Raphael,  Titian,  Tintoretto,  even  down  to  Tie- 
polo  in  the  eighteenth  century.  But  the  late  men, 
the  men  of  the  Decadence,  are  not  mentioned  here 
because  of  their  exaggerated  sentiment,  their  inferior 
workmanship — in  short,  the  decay  of  the  tradition  of 
the  craft.  In  France  the  fifteenth-century  primitives 
are  considered,  and  also  the  sixteenth-century  men, 
including  Claude  and  Poussin;  but  the  work  of  the 
Rigauds,  Mignards,  Coypels,  Watteaus,  and  Bouchers 
seems  of  a  distinctly  modern  spirit  and  does  not  be- 
long here.  This  is  equally  true  of  all  English  painting 
from  Hogarth  to  the  present  time.  In  Spain  we  stop 
with  the  School  of  Velasquez,  in  Germany  and  the 
Low  Countries  with  the  seventeenth-century  men. 
The  modern  painters,  down  to  the  present  day,  so  far 
as  they  are  found  in  the  public  galleries  of  Europe, 
will  perhaps  form  a  separate  guide-book,  which  by  its 
very  limitation  to  modern  painting  can  be  better 
treated  by  itself. 

Only  the  best  pictures  among  the  old  masters  are 
chosen  for  comment.  This  does  not  mean,  however, 
that  only  the  great  masterpieces  have  been  considered. 
There  are,  for  instance,  notes  upon  some  three  hun- 
dred pictures  in  the  Venice  Academy,  upon  five  hun- 
dred in  the  Uffizi  Gallery,  and  some  six  hundred  in 
the  Louvre  or  the  National  Gallery,  London.  Other 
galleries  are  treated  in  the  same  proportion.  But  it 
has  not  been  thought  worth  while  to  delve  deeply  into 
the  paternity  of  pictures  by  third-rate  primitives  or 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES  vii 

to  give  space  to  mediocre  or  ruined  examples  by  even 
celebrated  painters.  The  merits  that  now  exist  in  a 
canvas,  and  can  be  seen  by  any  intelligent  observer, 
are  the  features  insisted  upon  herein. 

In  giving  the  relative  rank  of  pictures,  a  system  of 
starring  has  been  followed. 

Mention  without  a  star  indicates  a  picture  of  merit, 
otherwise  it  would  not  have  been  selected  from  the 
given  collection  at  all. 

One  star  (*)  means  a  picture  of  more  than  average 
importance,  whether  it  be  by  a  great  or  by  a  medi- 
ocre painter. 

Two  stars  (**)  indicates  a  work  of  high  rank  as  art, 
quite  regardless  of  its  painter's  name,  and  may  be  given 
to  a  picture  attributed  to  a  school  or  by  a  painter  un- 
known. 

Three  stars  (***)  signifies  a  great  masterpiece. 

The  length  of  each  note  and  its  general  tenor  will  in 
most  cases  suggest  the  relative  importance  of  the  picture. 

Catalogues  of  the  galleries  should  be  used  in  con- 
nection with  these  guide-books,  for  they  contain  much 
information  not  repeated  here.  The  gallery  catalogues 
are  usually  arranged  alphabetically  under  the  painters* 
names,  although  there  are  some  of  them  that  make 
reference  by  school,  or  room,  or  number,  according  to 
the  hanging  of  the  pictures  in  the  gallery.  But  the 
place  where  the  picture  may  be  hung  is  constantly 
shifting;  its  number,  too,  may  be  subject  to  alteration 
with  each  new  edition  of  the  catalogue;  but  its  painter's 


viii  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

name  is  perhaps  less  liable  to  change.  An  arrangement, 
therefore,  by  the  painters'  names  placed  alphabetically 
has  been  necessarily  adopted  in  these  guide-books. 
Usually  the  prefixes  "de,"  "di,"  "van,"  and  "von" 
have  been  disregarded  in  the  arrangement  of  the  names. 
And  usually,  also,  the  more  familiar  name  of  the  artist 
is  used — that  is,  Botticelli,  not  Filipepi;  Correggio,  not 
AUegri;  Tintoretto,  not  Robusti.  In  practical  use  the 
student  can  ascertain  from  the  picture-frame  the  name 
of  the  painter  and  turn  to  it  alphabetically  in  this  guide- 
book. In  case  the  name  has  been  recently  changed, 
he  can  take  the  number  from  the  frame  and,  by  turning 
to  the  numerical  index  at  the  end  of  each  volume,  can 
ascertain  the  former  name  and  thus  the  alphabetical 
place  of  the  note  about  that  particular  picture. 

The  picture  appears  under  the  name  or  attribution 
given  in  the  catalogue.  If  there  is  no  catalogue,  then 
the  name  on  the  frame  is  taken.  But  that  does  not 
necessarily  mean  that  the  name  or  attribution  is 
accepted  in  the  notes.  Differences  of  view  are  given 
very  frequently.  It  is  important  that  we  should  know 
the  painter  of  the  picture  before  us.  The  question  of 
attribution  is  very  much  in  the  air  to-day,  and  consider- 
able space  is  devoted  to  it  not  only  in  the  General  In- 
troduction but  in  the  notes  themselves.  Occasionally, 
however,  the  whole  question  of  authorship  is  passed 
over  in  favour  of  the  beauty  of  the  picture  itself.  It 
is  always  the  art  of  the  picture  we  are  seeking,  more 
than  its  name,  or  pedigree,  or  commercial  value. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES  ix 

Conciseness  herein  has  been  a  necessity.  These 
notes  are  suggestions  for  study  or  thought  rather  than 
complete  statements  about  the  pictures.  Even  the 
matter  of  an  attribution  is  often  dismissed  in  a  sentence 
though  it  may  have  been  thought  over  for  weeks. 
If  the  student  would  go  to  the  bottom  of  things  he 
must  read  further  and  do  some  investigating  on  his 
own  account.  The  lives  of  the  painters,  the  history  of 
the  schools,  the  opinions  of  the  connoisseurs  may  be 
read  elsewhere.  A  bibliography,  in  the  London  vol- 
ume, will  suggest  the  best  among  the  available  books 
in  both  history  and  criticism. 

The  proper  test  of  a  guide-book  is  its  use.  These 
notes  were  written  in  the  galleries  and  before  the  pic- 
tures. I  have  not  trusted  my  memory  about  them,  nor 
shall  I  trust  the  memory  of  that  man  who,  from  his 
easy  chair,  declares  he  knows  the  pictures  by  heart. 
The  opinions  and  conclusions  herein  have  not  been 
lightly  arrived  at.  Indeed,  they  are  the  result  of  more 
than  thirty  years*  study  of  the  European  galleries. 
That  they  are  often  diametrically  opposed  to  current 
views  and  beliefs  should  not  be  cause  for  dismissing 
them  from  consideration.  Examine  the  pictures,  guide- 
book in  hand.  That  is  the  test  to  which  I  submit  and 
which  I  exact. 

Yet  with  this  insistence  made,  one  must  still  feel 
apologetic  or  at  least  sceptical  about  results.  However 
accurate  one  would  be  as  to  fact,  it  is  obviously  impos- 
sible to  handle  so  many  titles,  names,  and  numbers 


X  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

without  an  occasional  failure  of  the  eye  or  a  slip  of  the 
pen;  and  however  frankly  fair  in  criticism  one  may 
fancy  himself,  it  is  again  impossible  to  formulate  judg- 
ments on,  say,  ten  thousand  pictures  without  here  and 
there  committing  blunders.  These  difficulties  may  be 
obviated  in  future  editions.  If  opinions  herein  are 
found  to  be  wrong,  they  will  be  edited  out  of  the  work 
just  as  quickly  as  errors  of  fact.  The  reach  is  toward 
a  reliable  guide  though  the  grasp  may  fall  short  of  full 
attainment. 

It  remains  to  be  said  that  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  George  B.  McClellan  for  helpful  suggestions  re- 
garding this  series,  and  to  Mr.  Sydney  Philip  Noe  not 
only  for  good  counsel  but  for  practical  assistance  in 
copying  manuscript  and  reading  proof. 

John  C,  Van  Dyke. 

Rutgers  College,  1914. 


THE  PRADO 


NOTE  ON  THE  PRADO 

The  pictures  of  the  Prado  represent  the  collections 
of  the  kings  of  Spain.  The  art  treasures  of  Charles  V, 
Philip  II,  Philip  IV,  Philip  V  are  incorporated  in  the 
present  gallery.  Ferdinand  VII  made  the  final  com- 
bination by  bringing  together  the  pictures  from  all 
the  royal  palaces  except  the  Escorial.  In  1840  a  no- 
table addition  of  Spanish  and  Flemish  works  taken 
from  convents  was  brought  to  the  Prado.  Since  then 
the  accumulations  have  been  sporadic  and  limited. 
Perhaps  the  gallery  can  get  on  without  further  acquisi- 
tions. It  already  holds  twenty-five  hundred  pictures 
and  has  a  wide-spread  reputation  in  consequence 
thereof. 

Seen  from  America,  or  even  from  London,  Paris,  or 
Berlin,  the  gallery  at  Madrid  takes  on  a  roseate  hue 
and  looms  skyward  like  a  mirage.  It  is  the  greatest 
This  and  the  most  wonderful  That  of  all  the  Euro- 
pean galleries.  But  after  one  visits  Madrid  and  spends 
several  weeks  in  the  gallery  some  of  his  illusions  are 
dispelled.  It  is,  of  course,  the  one  place  in  the  world 
where  one  can  study  Velasquez  in  his  various  manners. 
There  are  forty-six  of  his  pictures  here,  including  many 
portraits,  many  equestrian  figures,  many  compositions 

3 


4  NOTE  ON  THE  PRADO 

of  which  Las  Meiain&s,  the  Tapestry  Weavers,  the 
Surrender  of  Breda  are  the  most  important.  The  gal- 
lery is  justly  famous  for  its  examples  of  Velasquez. 
There  are  also  many  Murillos  which  do  not  increase 
one's  admiration  for  that  painter,  many  fine  Riberas, 
a  large  number  of  excellent  II  Grecos,  and  rooms  full 
of  Goyas.  Beside  this  there  is  effective  representation 
of  the  early  Spaniards  such  as  one  finds  nowhere  else. 
The  value  of  the  Prado  in  the  study  of  Spanish  art 
can  hardly  be  overstated. 

As  for  the  Italian  Schools,  they  are  inadequately  rep- 
resented. There  are  many  pictures  ascribed  to  Titian, 
Tintoretto,  Paolo  Veronese,  Raphael — some  of  them 
not  genuine  and  others  merely  pictures  of  the  schools — 
but  by  the  Florentines,  Umbrians,  Ferrarese,  Milanese 
there  are  very  few.  One  misses  Botticelli,  Filippino, 
Ghirlandajo,  Benozzo,  Dossi,  Tura,  Solario,  Antonello, 
Signorelli,  Perugino,  Pinturicchio,  and  a  dozen  others. 
The  German  and  Dutch  Schools  are  again  wanting  in 
adequate  representation.  There  is  one  supposed  Rem- 
brandt, a  charming  Diirer,  a  questionable  Holbein;  but 
Terborch,  Vermeer,  De  Hooch,  with  the  pupils  of  Rem- 
brandt, are  not  seen.  Some  of  the  least  important  of 
the  little  Netherlanders — the  lesser  Brueghels,  for  in- 
stance— ^have  scores  of  pictures  filling  whole  rooms  in 
the  gallery;  but  the  blanks  and  gaps  in  the  list  of  the 
greater  men  are  astonishing.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  are  a  few  notable  pictures  by  the  early  Flemings 
and  by  Rubens  some  sixty-five  pictures — most  of  them 


NOTE  ON  THE  PRADO  5 

school  pieces.  There  are  only  two  or  three  clean 
pieces  of  painting  by  Rubens's  own  hand  in  the  entire 
gathering. 

Many  of  the  large  pictures  in  the  gallery,  especially 
those  by  Rubens  and  Titian,  are  in  bad  condition, 
as  the  result  of  either  the  fire  of  1734  or  subsequent 
repainting.  There  has  been  savage  repainting  upon 
many  of  these  Prado  pictures.  They  have  not  been 
well  taken  care  of  in  the  past.  Nor  are  they  well 
arranged  or  rightly  hung  at  the  present  time.  The 
building,  as  a  place  to  hang  pictures,  has  few  desira- 
ble features  and  many  shortcomings.  The  rooms  are 
not  sufficiently  lighted  save  on  the  top  floor.  Strangely 
enough,  this  top  floor  with  its  good  light  is  given  over  to 
third-rate  pictures  which  might  as  well  be  placed  in  the 
storeroom,  while  down  in  the  basement,  in  rooms  fitted 
only  for  the  keeping  of  vegetables,  in  the  dark  where 
no  one  can  see  them,  are  examples  of  the  fine  work  of 
Van  der  Weyden,  Memling,  the  Master  of  Flemalle, 
Patinir,  Bosch — in  some  respects  the  most  precious, 
certainly  the  most  delicate,  pictures  in  the  gallery. 

The  arrangement  on  the  wall  is  almost  everywhere 
arbitrary.  All  the  portraits,  for  instance,  of  all  the 
schools  are  hung  together,  as  though  the  interest  in 
them  was  wholly  iconographic  and  not  aesthetic  or 
pictorial.  Velasquez,  Goya,  and  others  are  in  rooms 
by  themselves,  while  the  earlier  Spaniards  are  dis- 
tributed about  as  whim  or  occasion  seems  to  demand. 
Titian  and  Rubens  occupy  the  long  gallery,  but  for 


6  NOTE  ON  THE  PRADO 

the  rest  of  the  Italians  and  Flemings  you  find  them 
where  and  how  you  can.  The  catalogue  (in  Spanish) 
is  of  little  help  in  locating  the  pictures.  It  is  descrip- 
tive and  not  always  historically  accurate.  Its  attri- 
bution of  the  pictures  leaves  something  to  be  desired. 
The  student  should  go  to  the  Escorial  (one  hour 
from  Madrid)  for  the  few  fine  examples  of  the  Italians 
and  Flemings  to  be  seen  there.  Toledo  is  a  short  day 
excursion  from  Madrid  and  one  finds  there  many 
portraits  by  II  Greco.  The  Madrid  churches  contain 
nothing  of  importance,  but  the  modern  pictures  in  the 
Academy  of  San  Fernando  should  be  seen. 


THE  PRADO,  MADRID 

15.  Angelico,  Fra.  Annunciation,  A  large  easel  pic- 
ture for  Fra  Angelico— perhaps  too  large  for  the 
rather  attenuated  sentiment  it  carries  with  it  but 
it  is  beautiful,  nevertheless.  As  a  composition  it 
does  not  hold  together  very  well  and  the  lighting 
is,  of  course,  arbitrary.  The  angel  is  resplendent 
in  gold  and  the  garden  in  flowers.  The  predella 
below  is  charming  in  its  small  panels  of  colour. 
Notice  that  the  second  panel  (The  Visitation)  is 
the  direct  reverse  in  light  of  the  large  picture  above 
It.  The  landscape  is  here  lighter  than  the  porch, 
whereas  in  the  picture  above  the  porch  and  interior 
are  lighter  than  the  landscape.  Another  version 
in  the  Chiesa  del  Gesii,  Cortona. 

20.  Basaiti,  Marco.  Christ  Giving  the  Keys  to 
Peter.  This  picture  was  formerly  attributed  to 
Marcom  and  then  to  Catena.  The  latter  is,  per- 
haps, a  nearer  guess  than  Basaiti.  It  has  been 
cleaned  and  retouched  and  now  has  a  washed-out 
flattened  look  about  it.  The  heads  of  the  women 
at  the  upper  left  are  interesting.  The  blue  of  the 
robe  of  Christ  seems  violent. 

45.  Bassano,  Leandro.  Portrait  of  an  Unknown 
Man.  A  rather  fine  characterisation  of  a  fat  dig- 
nitary of  some  importance,  perhaps,  in  his  day  and 
generation.  The  forehead  is  well  done  as  also  the 
eyes,  nose,  mouth,  and  hands.  The  fingers  are  like 
the  work  of  Bassano.  Formerly  given  to  Titian 
7 


8  THE  PRADO 

50.  Bellini,  Giovanni.  The  Virgin  with  St.  Ursula 
*  and  the  Magdalen,  This  is  a  variation  of  the  pic- 
ture in  the  Venice  Academy  (No.  613),  the  St. 
Ursula  showing  here  in  place  of  the  Magdalen 
there.  It  is  done  with  almost  as  much  charm  and 
beauty  as  the  Venetian  picture.  The  types  are 
lovely,  especially  the  Madonna  with  her  round, 
wondering  eyes  and  her  slight  mouth.  There  is 
much  nobility  of  feeling  in  the  picture  and  much 
of  naive  beauty,  especially  in  the  shy  St.  Ursula  at 
the  right.  The  colour  is  excellent  though  the  back- 
ground has  darkened,  and  the  green  curtain  back 
of  the  Madonna  has  deepened  almost  to  the  point 
of  disappearance.     Hurt  by  repainting. 

610- 1  Berruguete,  Pedro.  Scenes  from  the  Lives  of 
618  J  S.  Domenico,  et  al.  There  are  half  a  dozen  or 
more  of  these  pictures  attributed  to  Pedro  Berru- 
guete, taken  from  the  convent  of  S.  Tomas  at  Avila, 
that  have  much  decorative  beauty.  They  are 
hard  in  drawing  but  interesting  in  colour  and  com- 
position. Little  is  known  about  the  man.  He  was 
an  early  Spaniard,  dying  after  1504,  and  may  have 
been  influenced  by  the  Bellini  or  even  Carpaccio. 

1361.    Bles,  Herri  met  de.     Adoration  of  Kings.    An 

*  excellent  triptych  and  much  better  done  than  the 
pseudo-Bles  in  the  Munich  Gallery  (No.  146)  or 
any  of  the  Antwerp  pictures  attributed  to  Bles. 
There  is  a  good  deal  of  material  in  each  panel, 
after  the  fashion  of  Bles,  but  it  is  well  held  to- 
gether and  without  spottiness  in  the  lights.  The 
architecture  is  ornate,  the  figures  and  costumes 
even  more  so.  The  whole  triptych  is  a  maze  of 
fine  goldsmith-like  work.  What  beautiful  robes 
in  the  central  panel !    What  queenly  women  in  the 


CANO,  ALONZO  9 

Queen  of  Sheba  panel  at  the  right!  The  Bles  owl 
sign  is  in  the  central  panel,  high  up  on  the  archi- 
tecture, but  it  means  little.  The  picture  came 
from  the  Escorial,  where  it  passed  as  a  Lucas  van 
Leyden.     In  good  condition  but  in  a  bad  frame. 

2048.    Bosch,   Jerome.    Adoration  of  Kings.     An   ex- 

*  cellent  Bosch,  it  being  less  fantastic  in  conception 
and  less  spotty  in  small  objects  than  his  average 
work.  The  landscape,  with  its  small  figures,  its 
distant  city  and  sky,  is  wonderfully  fine,  and  some 
of  the  figures  in  the  foreground  are  not  only  noble 
in  pose  but  superb  in  colour.  Notice  the  black 
king  in  white  in  the  centre  panel,  or  the  Madonna, 
or  the  St.  Peter  in  the  left  wing.  What  beautiful 
colour  and  what  excellent  flat  painting! 

2053.   Creation.    The  picture  is  handsome  in  the 

figure  of  the  Creator  with  the  coral-red  robe,  but 
the  rest  of  it  is  rather  spotty  in  colour  and  too  lit- 
tered up  with  small  objects.  It  is,  however,  supe- 
rior to  some  of  the  other  Boschs  here.  No.  2048 
excepted.  Nothing  at  the  Prado  quite  reaches  up 
to  the  fine  examples  of  this  painter  in  the  Salles 
Capitulares  at  the  Escorial. 

L430.  Brueghel  the  Elder,  Jan  (Velvet).  Landscape. 
This  and  several  other  small  landscapes  (Nos.  1427, 
1433,  1435,  1436)  are  decidedly  good.  There  is  a 
roomful  of  Brueghels  here  at  the  Prado,  variously 
assigned  and  confused  with  one  another,  but  if  the 
student  has  well  in  mind  the  different  styles  of  the 
four  or  more  Brueghels  he  will  have  little  diflSculty 
in  this  collection.  See  the  notes  on  the  Brueghels 
at  Antwerp  and  Vienna. 

627.  Gano,  Alonzo.  The  Virgin  Adoring  the  Child. 
There  is  something  of  Murillo  in  it  without  being 


10  THE  PRADO 

so  sweet  and  sugary  as  Murillo  usually  appears. 
The  colour  is  attractive  and  the  landscape  is  more 
than  good.  It  is  hurt  by  repainting  and  cleaning, 
but  still  has  some  largeness  and  dignity  about  it. 

629.   The  Dead  Christ.    A  little  weak  in  sentiment 

and  uncertain  in  the  drawing.  The  upholding 
angel  is  much  frailer  than  a  related  subject  in  the 
Wallace  Collection  (No.  15)  put  down  to  Cano. 
In  colour  and  in  the  wings  of  the  angel  there  is  a 
reminder  of  the  Domenico  Feti  in  the  Berlin  Gal- 
lery (No.  380b). 

646.  Carreno  de  Miranda,  Juan.  Portrait  of  a 
Girl  in  Red,  A  dwarf-like  monstrosity  in  a  blaze 
of  red  that  is  rather  good.  It  is  in  the  style  of 
Velasquez  but  heavy  and  without  his  strength  or 
delicacy  of  touch. 

645.    Portrait  of  Potemkin,     It  has  bulk  and  body 

to  it  though  not  done  with  the  certainty  of  a  Velas- 
quez by  any  means.     The  dress  is  gorgeous. 

642.    Portrait  of  Charles  11.     This  is  somewhat  like 

the  portrait  in  the  Berlin  Gallery  (No.  407).  Just 
which  is  the  original  would  be  difficult  to  establish. 
Both  of  them  may  have  been  worked  up  from  the 
sketchy  No.  648.  Carreno  was  not  such  a  genius 
of  the  brush  that  his  style  was  very  distinct  from 
others  of  the  school. 

648.    Portrait  of  Charles  II.     A  bust  portrait  that 

is  too  soft  in  the  modelling  and  too  smooth  in  the 
surfaces.  It  may  be  the  original  from  which  Nos. 
642  and  (at  Berlin)  No.  407  were  constructed. 

1461.    Christus,     Peter.     Triptych.     There     are     four 
**       panels  of  this  so-called  triptych  showing  the  An- 
nunciation, the  Visitation,  the  Nativity,  and  the 


CLAUDE  LORRAINE  11 

Adoration.  All  the  panels  are  surrounded  by  ar- 
chitectural framings,  with  sculptural  reliefs  exe- 
cuted with  much  truth  and  beauty.  These  fram- 
ings are  better  done  than  in  the  Van  der  Weyden 
altar-pieces  in  the  Berlin  Gallery.  The  Annun- 
ciation with  its  set-in  of  the  room  and  the  figures 
is  delightful.  The  colour  and  light  of  it  are  quite 
above  reproach.  And  what  could  be  finer  than 
the  robe  of  the  angel,  or  the  beautiful  Madonna, 
or  the  bits  of  still-life,  or  the  red  robe,  or  the  cush- 
ions at  the  back!  The  Visitation  is  simpler  but 
with  excellent  colour  in  the  figures,  and  a  wonder- 
ful landscape.  The  hands  are  somewhat  injured. 
The  Nativity  has  suffered  more  than  the  other 
panels  from  retouching,  especially  in  the  Child,  the 
Joseph,  the  kneeling  angel,  and  the  architecture  at 
the  back.  The  landscape  is  less  interesting  than 
in  the  Visitation.  The  fourth  panel,  the  Adoration, 
is  the  richest  of  all  in  robes,  jewels,  and  colouring. 
The  splendour  of  it  is  amazing.  Look  at  the  jew- 
elled collar  and  hat  of  the  kneeling  king,  the  fur- 
lined  robe  of  the  king  back  of  him,  the  fine  drawing 
of  the  faces  and  hands,  the  beautiful  landscape 
with  the  castle,  and  the  distant  blue  fields.  This 
panel  seems  in  excellent  condition.  The  whole 
work  is  a  masterpiece  in  skill  and  has  good  senti- 
ment about  it.  It  is  put  down  to  Christus  and 
seems  to  agree  in  a  vague  way  with  certain  pictures 
at  Brussels  and  elsewhere,  attributed  to  him;  but 
the  fact  remains  that  there  is  little  known  about 
Christus  in  spite  of  persistent  attributions  to  him. 
The  catalogue  admits  that  the  authenticity  of  this 
Christus  is  questionable. 
2254.  Claude  Lorraine.  Port  of  Ostia.  There  are  in 
this  gallery  half  a  dozen  Claudes,  of  which  No. 


♦ 


12  THE  PRADO 

2254  or  No.  2253  is,  perhaps,  the  best.  They  are 
effective  in  composition  and  light,  and,  though 
to-day  they  seem  a  Httle  theatrical,  they  are,  nev- 
ertheless, notable  works. 

2259.   Landscape,    The  effect  of  the  centre  of  light 

surrounded  by  darks  is  forced  and  not  at  all  true 
to  nature,  but  it  has  strength  to  it.  The  picture 
seems  broader  and  different  in  handling  from  what 
one  usually  associates  with  Claude.  He  was  a 
careful,  somewhat  timid  person  with  the  brush,  as 
a  rule. 

1140.  Coello,  Alonzo  Sanchez.  Anne  of  Austria.  An 
interesting  head  that  has  been  cut  down  or  cut 
out  of  some  larger  picture.     It  is  well  done. 

1136.   Prince  Charles,    Done  in  a  style  that  reached 

earlier  development  in  Antonio  Moro.  It  is  not 
the  best  style  of  portraiture  but  is  effective  and 
measurably  imposing.  The  high  lights  are  over- 
accented,  and  the  figure  comes  forward  out  of  the 
frame.     See  also  No.  1137  in  a  similar  vein. 

1144.    Marriage  of  St.  Catherine.     It  seems  to  have 

been  conceived  after  the  manner  rather  than  in 
the  style  of  Correggio  and  as  a  result  is  merely 

*  pretty. 

111.  Correggio,  Antonio  AUegri  da.  Noli  me  Tan- 
gere.  The  picture  is  genuine  enough  but  is  not 
in  good  condition.  The  flesh-notes  have  been  in- 
jured and  there  is  an  airless  feeling  about  the  sky 
that  could  probably  be  explained  by  the  restorer's 
story.  The  attitude  of  the  Christ  is  a  little  too 
dramatic,  that  of  the  Magdalen  right  enough.  A 
graceful  picture  in  colour,  and  the  trees  of  the  mid- 
dle distance  are  suggestive  of  depth  and  shadow; 
but  if  one  accepted  this  picture  and  No.  112  as 


DURER,  ALBRECHT  13 

wholly  representative  of  Correggio  he  would  be 
greatly  misled.  They  show  none  of  his  strength, 
and  Correggio  had  strength  as  well  as  grace.  Those 
who  have  studied  him  at  Parma  know  that  the 
pretty  faces  of  women  and  children  were  not  his 
whole  artistic  equipment. 

112.    Madonna,  Child,  and  St,  John.     Somewhat  too 

pretty  in  the  faces  and  possibly  ultra-graceful  in 
the  lean  and  bend  of  the  figures.  The  little  St. 
John  is  a  sturdy  figure,  the  colour  is  good,  and 
the  landscape  excellent.  Notice  the  distant  view 
with  its  slight  touch  of  mystery. 

2078.  Dou,  Gerard.  A  Hermit,  To  be  compared  with 
the  so-called  Rembrandt  of  the  same  subject  in  the 
Louvre  (No.  2541a)  to  establish  Dou  as  the  pos- 
sible painter  of  the  Louvre  picture. 

2179.  Durer,  Albrecht.  Portrait  of  the  Painter,  Ex- 
cellent in  every  way — except  in  its  hanging  upon 
the  wall,  which  is  atrocious.  It  is  a  marvel  of  ex- 
act drawing  and  really  wonderful  in  its  delicacy 
and  effectiveness  of  touch.  The  characterisation 
of  the  youthful  Diirer  is  superbly  serious  for  all  its 
dandified  look.  In  pure  pictorial  charm  he  never 
went  beyond  this  little  portrait  of  himself.  What 
a  fine  landscape  through  the  window!  Nothihg 
could  be  more  lovely  as  a  glimpse  of  nature  and 
nothing  could  be  truer  as  a  study  of  mountain 
forms.  This  is  one  of  the  gems  of  the  gallery  and, 
thank  Heaven!  not  ruined  by  scrubbing  or  repaint- 
ing. Some  there  are  who  doubt  its  authenticity, 
but,  no  matter  whether  it  be  original,  copy,  or  even 
forgery,  it  is  a  fine  portrait  in  any  event.  The 
work,  however,  is  an  original  Diirer.  A  copy  is  in 
the  Uffizi  at  Florence. 


** 


14  THE  PRADO 

2180.    Portrait  of  an   Unknown  Man,     Not   SO  cer- 

*  tainly  by  Diirer  and  yet,  perhaps,  nearer  to  him 
than  any  other  painter  one  can  think  of.  It  is  a 
very  good  portrait  both  in  its  insight  and  charac- 
terisation and  in  its  technique.  A  resolute  person- 
ality, supposed  to  be  that  of  Hans  Imhof . 

2177 1 Adam  and  Eve,    The  Eve  is  the  more  elab- 

2178  J  orate  and  the  more  posed  of  the  two,  but  the  Adam 

*  is  the  finer  figure.  The  latter  is  a  beautiful  piece 
of  drawing,  though  Diirer  was  not  quite  happy  in 
his  subject  and  handled  it  awkwardly  and  with 
difficulty.  In  such  details  as  the  hands  and  feet 
he  is,  of  course,  almost  perfect.  The  surface  has 
been  hurt  by  repainting.  The  Eve  seems  in  better 
condition,  though  a  close  study  might  disclose  the 
fact  that  it,  too,  has  been  injured.  Both  are  upon 
wood  and  signed — the  Eve  prominently  in  a  cartel. 
Good  copies  in  the  Pitti,  Florence  (Nos.  1,  20). 

1473.  Dyck,  Anthony  van.  St.  Jerome,  It  is  possibly 
the  painter's  first  attempt  at  the  St.  Jerome  in  the 
Dresden  Gallery,  though  this  is  somewhat  different 
from  that.  It  does  not  strike  one  as  being  an  in- 
spired work  though  good  enough  in  its  modelling. 

1475.   Pieta,    This  picture  is  similar  to  the  one  in  the 

Antwerp  Museum,  but  different  in  size.  It  is  fairly 
well  drawn  and  held  together.  The  flesh  is  black- 
ish from  under-basing.  The  handling  seems  pure, 
especially  in  the  Magdalen. 

1477.    The  Betrayal  of  Christ.     A  really  fine  Van 

Dyck,  especially  in  the  grouping,  the  push-up  and 
crowd  of  the  figures  toward  the  central  figure  of 
Christ,  and  in  its  intense  dramatic  quality.  The 
light  is  arbitrary  studio  light  with  a  conventional 


« 


DYCK^  ANTHONY  VAN  15 

dark  ground — there  apparently  being  no  light  from 
the  torch  except  as  seen  reflected  from  the  leaves 
above.  Still,  the  effect  of  a  night  scene  is  not  badly 
given.  The  colouring  is  hot  in  the  flesh  and  robes 
with  the  cool  blue  a  little  out  of  key.  The  drawing 
is  very  good.  The  whole  work  shows  Van  Dyck 
in  his  early  style  following  Rubens.  It  is  in  rather 
bad  condition. 

1474.    The    Crowning   with    Thorns.     The   figure   of 

*  Christ  is  hectic  in  the  flesh  but  not  wanting  in 
brilliancy.  It  is  an  excellent  figure.  The  picture 
is  not,  however,  marked  by  any  fine  colour  quality. 
The  blues  are  all  at  the  left  and  the  warm  colours 
are  all  at  the  right.  The  painting,  especially  in 
the  armour,  the  hair,  the  flesh,  seems  very  well 
done.  The  dog  may  not  have  been  done  by  Van 
Dyck,  but  in  any  event  the  work  upon  him  is 
careless  work.  In  the  painter's  early  style  fol- 
lowing Rubens. 

1478.   St,  Francis.     Done   with   skill    though   now 

blackish  in  colour  and  somewhat  repainted  in  the 
angel  and  elsewhere.  The  picture  is  pieced  out 
at  the  top.     Another  version  at  Vienna  (No.  1036). 

1488.    Portrait   of  an    Unknown   Man.     A   common 

enough  portrait  with  as  many  doubts  about  the 
Van  Dyck  part  of  it  as  about  the  identity  of  the 
sitter. 

1483.    Portrait   of   the   Princess   of   Orange,    Anxalia 

de  Solnxs.  The  same  sitter  appears  again  in  the 
portrait.  No.  700,  at  the  Brera,  Milan.  This  Ma- 
drid portrait  is  badly  cleaned  in  both  hands  and 
face  with  the  flush  in  the  face  suggestive  of  the 
restorer. 


THE  PRADO 


Portrait  of  Count  Bergh,     It  is  a  little  formal 

in  the  pose.  The  armour  is  well  painted  and  the 
head  is  well  enough  drawn,  but  the  picture  does 
not  warrant  the  high  praise  that  has  been  given  it 
by  some  critics.  Van  Dyck  in  his  best  work  is 
almost  above  praise,  but  his  output  was  very  un- 
even and  much  of  it  represents  merely  shop  work. 

Don    Ferdinand   of   Austria.      The    colour    is 

fairly  good,  but  the  portrait  is  too  pretty  in  the 
face,  hair,  and  dress,  too  weak  in  the  characterisa- 
tion. 

The  Marquise  de  Leganes,     A  picture  of  Van 

Dyck's  Genoese  period,  imposing  in  dress,  with  a 
mannered  attitude  and  hands  that  are  of  Van 
Dyck  studio  manufacture.  Truth  to  fact  probably 
compelled  the  disagreeable  expression  of  the  face. 
The  background  is  blackish,  and  the  line  that  cuts 
the  canvas  in  two  is  disturbing.  The  portrait  is 
not  satisfactory. 

The  Countess  of  Oxford,      The  left  arm  has 

been  cleaned  until  the  modelling  has  been  destroyed, 
and  the  right  hand  looks  as  though  it  had  been 
dipped  in  red  paint,  but  the  head  is  still  satisfac- 
tory. There  is  a  loftiness  of  attitude  about  the 
figure  characteristic  of  Van  Dyck,  something  imi- 
tated by  many  followers,  but  always  an  attractive 
feature  of  the  Van  Dyck  portraits.  This  is  not  a 
great  portrait  by  any  means  but  excellent  by  con- 
trast with  some  others  here  attributed  to  Van 
Dyck. 

Portrait  of  David  Ryckaert.     It  is  painted  on 

wood,  and  parts  of  it  show  the  original  surface  with 
the  strokes  of  the  brush  as  the  painter  left  them. 


EYCK,  HUBERT  VAN  17 

The  sitter  is  a  fine  type  and  presented  in  both 
a  manly  and  a  picturesque  way.  How  well  the 
forehead,  eyes,  nose,  moustache,  and  beard  are 
done!  And  what  very  good  colour!  Van  Dyck 
was  not  always  so  happy  in  his  work.  He  was 
much  given  to  doing  the  official  canvas — the  pot- 
boiler— but  occasionally  he  broke  forth  with  such 
a  portrait  as  this,  showing  that  he  could  if  he 
would  paint  superbly.  He  was  essentially  a  por- 
trait-painter, and  in  the  presence  of  such  a  portrait 
as  this  one  regrets  that  he  ever  wasted  time  and 
energy  on  classical  or  religious  themes. 

1487.    Portrait    of   a    Musician,     It    can    hardly    be 

questioned  that  it  is  a  Van  Dyck,  for  it  has  many 
indications  of  his  workmanship,  but  it  is  far  from 
being  a  distinguished  product  of  his  brush.  How 
badly  it  is  placed  on  the  canvas,  as  though  care- 
lessly considered! 

1489.    Van   Dyck   and  the    Count  of  Bristol.     It  is 

not  well  placed  on  the  canvas,  nor  is  it  well  painted. 
Probably  never  more  than  an  unsuccessful  experi- 
ment whoever  did  it.  It  has  the  look  of  a  pupil's 
tribute  to  his  master. 

1510.  Eyck,  Hubert  van.  Christ,  the  Virgin,  and  St. 
John,  This  picture  certainly  has  a  Van  Eyck  look 
about  it,  suggesting  as  it  does  the  chief  figures  in 
the  St.  Bavon  altar-piece  though  it  seems  larger 
in  scale  and  broader  in  handling  than  the  original 
work.  The  minuteness  of  the  detail  in  the  jewels 
seems  relaxed  when  it  comes  to  the  heads  and  faces. 
They  are  carefully  drawn  in  the  nose,  brows,  and 
eyes,  but  are  remarkable  in  their  largeness  of  vi- 
sion for  the  time  of  the  Van  Eycks.  Notice  the 
hands,  the  hair,  and  the  shadow  masses  about  the 


18  THE  PRADO 

heads.  The  Madonna  with  her  fair  hair,  crown, 
and  jewelled  robe  is  very  good.  A  little  angel 
with  bird  wings  is  pushing  out  of  a  circular  window 
at  the  top.  The  picture  is  something  of  a  puzzle. 
Modern  criticism  ignores  it  or  dismisses  it  as  a 
sixteenth-century  version  of  the  chief  figures  in 
the  St.  Bavon  altar-piece,  but  wrangles  extensively 
about  a  poor  copy  of  Jan  Van  Eyck  (No.  1511) 
which  is  not  worth  quarrelling  over.  This  No. 
1510  is  a  good  picture  no  matter  if  it  be  a  mere 
reconstruction.  In  workmanship  it  is  vastly  supe- 
rior to  No.  1511  and  quite  worthy  of  the  later 
Flemish  traditions. 

1511.    Eyck,    Jan    van.      Triumph  of    the    Church,     A 

panel  of  interest  and  curiosity  in  art  history.  The 
composition,  types,  costumes,  colours,  architecture 
all  echo  the  Van  Eycks  at  second  hand,  as  seen 
in  Christus,  but  the  execution  is  another  matter. 
The  drawing  is  hard,  the  outlines  severe,  the  hair 
a  little  coarse,  the  grass  too  flat  and  wanting  in 
shadow  relief,  the  jewel  work  and  architecture  too 
crude,  the  Madonna  too  wooden  in  the  head  and 
neck,  the  hands  too  ill  drawn.  The  Van  Eycks 
could  not  have  done  it.  It  is  probably  some  poor 
copy  of  a  lost  Van  Eyck  or  Christus.  Apparently 
two  hands  have  worked  upon  it.  The  larger  fig- 
ures at  the  bottom  are  better  in  execution  than  the 
smaller  ones  in  the  middle  or  at  the  top.  Notice 
how  flat  the  figures  and  that  the  picture  is  wanting 
in  the  third  dimension — depth. 

1915.    Flemish  School  (15th  Century).    Annunciation. 

A  picture  with  some  beauty  of  colour  and  good 
architecture  but  a  little  coarse  in  type,  sentiment, 
and  drawing.     There  have  been  many  guesses  at 


FLEMISH  SCHOOL  19 

its  authorship,  so  it  may  do  no  harm  to  add  still 
another,  to  the  effect  that  it  came  from  the  work- 
shop of  the  so-called  Master  of  Flemalle,  now  more 
or  less  recognised  as  identical  with  Robert  Campin. 

1936.    Madonna   and  Child.     A    dark   picture   that 

has  merit.  It  is  the  work  of  a  northern  painter 
influenced  by  Italy. 

1930.    Madonna  and  Child.     A  somewhat  prettified 

Madonna  probably  painted  by  Gossart,  as  Miindler 
suggested  a  long  time  ago.  It  is  smooth  and  man- 
nered but  not  wanting  in  charm. 

1932.    Madonna,  Child,  and  St.  John.     It  lacks  in 

force  and  has  every  appearance  of  being  a  sweet- 
ened following  of  Quentin  Metsys. 

1920.   Madonna  and  Child.     The  standing  figure  is 

short  and  heavy.  There  is  a  look  of  the  School  of 
the  Master  of  Flemalle  about  the  Madonna.  The 
picture  was  formerly  ascribed  to  Lucas  van  Leyden, 
and  at  one  time  thought  to  be  a  copy  after  a  pic- 
ture by  the  Van  Eycks.  See  the  note  in  the  cata- 
logue. 

1921.  Madonna  and  Child.  A  work  of  some  orig- 
inality and  still  possessing  considerable  charm 
though  in  bad  condition.  Said  to  recall  the  man- 
ner of  Christus. 

-Madonna  and  St.  Anne.     This  panel  and  the 


Nos.  1927,  1928,  1929,  1935  originally  formed  a 
re  table,  but  are  now  (1912)  ruthlessly,  recklessly, 
and  unnecessarily  distributed  to  the  four  corners 
of  the  room  instead  of  being  brought  together  where 
they  might  be  studied,  compared,  and  looked  at 
for  singleness  of  effect.  The  panels  are  by  some 
unknown  Flemish  painter,  and  not  great  work,  but 


20  THE  PRADO 

such  merit  as  they  may  have  possessed  is  now 
harmed  by  the  unhappy  distribution. 

143.    Francia,    Giacomo.     St,   Margaret   with   Saints. 

The  picture  is  not  one  to  grow  enthusiastic  over. 
It  is  evidently  something  that  came  out  of  the 
workshop  of  Francesco  Francia.  See  the  catalogue 
note  upon  it. 

705- 1  GallegOS,  Fernando.     Scenes  from  Life  of  John 
710   /  Baptist.    A  half  dozen  small  pictures  showing  an 
early  Spanish  painter  working  under  Flemish  in- 
fluence, presumably  that  of  Bouts. 

2219 1  German  School.  Harmony  and  The  Three 
2220  /  Ages.  Two  panels  (not  certainly  by  the  same 
hand)  that  have  some  charm  of  form  and  colour — 
the  No.  2219  more  than  the  other.  The  names  of 
half  a  dozen  painters  have  been  suggested  as  the 
author  of  their  being.  The  note  in  the  catalogue 
suggests  the  disagreement  of  the  doctors  in  the  case. 

69.  Girolamo  da  Carpi.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  The 
badly  drawn  left  hand  is  too  prominent  but  other- 
wise the  portrait  is  very  good.  It  was  formerly  at- 
tributed to  Allori. 

1536.  Gossart,   Jan   (Mabuse).     Madonna   and  Child. 

There  is  interesting  if  rather  ornate  architecture  at 
the  back  and  some  good  workmanship  all  through 
the  picture.  The  Madonna  and  Child  are  tender, 
almost  plaintive  in  sentiment.  The  external  evi- 
dence seems  to  point  to  Gossart  but  the  picture  is 
not  too  certainly  by  him. 

1537.   Madonna  and  Child.     It  IS  hardly  by  Gossart. 

The  chances  are  that  it  is  a  Memling  school  piece. 
It  is  good  in  sentiment  and  has  a  fine  landscape. 


GRECO,  IL  21 

1  Greco,  II  (Domenico  Theotocopuli).  Por» 
]  traits,  A  half  dozen  portraits  by  II  Greco  that 
are  interesting  but  have  not  that  great  value  as 
art  which  an  enthusiastic  brotherhood  of  painters 
would  have  us  believe.  There  is  too  much  II 
Greco  and  not  enough  sitter  in  them  for  good  por- 
traiture. In  each  case  the  character  of  the  sitter 
is  Greco-ised.  This  personality  or  individuality  or 
even  eccentricity  of  the  painter  is  very  welcome  in 
figure  compositions,  but  in  portraiture  too  much 
of  it  may  prove  obtrusive.  The  sitter  requires 
some  measure  of  importance,  the  objective  truth 
some  positive  recognition. 

St.  John  Evangelist  and  St.   Francis.     What 

dreadfully  morbid  and  decadent  colour  but  how 
wonderfully  beautiful — beautiful  as  old  cathedral 
glass  which  is  at  its  best  just  before  it  is  ready  to 
crumble  with  decay!  The  most  refined  quality  of 
colour  usually  is  a  little  morbid;  and  the  richest 
notes  of  all  are  those  of  time-deepened  and  decayed 
pigments. 

Christ     Bearing     the     Cross.     A     remarkable 

piece  of  bad  drawing,  impossible  lighting,  and  still 
more  impossible  colouring;  but,  all  told,  what  a 
decorative  panel  it  is!  In  tapestry  or  glass  it 
would  be  superb.  And  what  intensity  of  feeling, 
what  fervour  there  is  about  it!  It  is  the  painting 
of  soul  well  by  painting  body  ill — a  method  of  ex- 
pression first  practised  in  mediaeval  art,  but  not 
unknown  to  more  modern  painting. 

The  Dead  Christ.  This  is  a  very  good  exam- 
ple of  II  Greco — mannerisms  and  all.  He  must 
have  had  something  wrong  with  his  eyes — some 
convexity  of  vision — for  his  figures  bulge  large  in 


22  THE  PRADO 

the  middle  and  dwindle  away  at  the  head  and 
feet.  He  is  not  only  eccentric  in  drawing  but 
peculiar  in  colour.  It  seems  a  most  unhealthy  vi- 
sion after  studying  that  of  Velasquez  in  the  next 
room,  but  it  has  very  decided  merits  as  art,  which 
in  its  finest  phases  is  somewhat  removed  from  the 
natural  and  even  the  healthy  or  sensible.  At  any 
rate,  there  is  nothing  commonplace  about  II  Greco 
though  his  vision  is  distorted  and  limited  and  his 
method  mannered.  What  beautiful  colour  is  here 
shown!  The  angel  at  the  left  with  the  green  robe 
— what  an  attractive  creature!  The  dead  figure  of 
Christ,  for  all  its  sooty  shadows,  is  a  strong  piece 
of  drawing.  Mind  you,  drawing  may  have  another 
mission  than  producing  a  realistic  appearance. 
There  is  beauty  in  line  as  line  quite  apart  from  the 
representation.  II  Greco  shows  it.  The  clouds 
and  the  background  are  as  usual  with  this  painter. 
At  some  time  he  must  have  seen  the  work  of  the 
weaker  Morales  and  been  influenced  by  it.  See 
the  Morales,  No.  943. 

825.   The   Resurrection,     This    picture   and    Nos. 

821,  823,  828  are  upright  panels  and  one  cannot 
help  imagining  what  charming  glass  windows  they 
would  make.  As  they  are,  the  colour  is  rather  dark 
and  wanting  in  luminosity.  The  drawing  in  No. 
825  is  mannered  and  the  scene  is,  perhaps,  over- 
dramatic,  but  it  is  undeniably  forceful.  So,  too, 
is  No.  823,  the  Crucifixion,  which  is  intense  in 
feeling  but  more  restrained  in  its  demonstration 
than  No.  825.  The  Baptism,  No.  821,  might  have 
been  done  by  a  pupil,  possibly  the  master's  son, 
Jorge. 

827.   The  Annunciation.    A  beautiful,  sketchy  affair 

and  in  condition  almost  as  the  painter  left  it.     The 


♦ 


♦ 


JORDAENS,  JAKOB  23 

colour  is  very  effective.  The  influence  of  Tinto- 
retto rather  than  Titian  is  here  apparent  not  only 
in  the  whirl  and  action  of  it  but  in  the  architecture 
and  light.  The  painter  was  a  strange  individuality 
— a  creature  swayed  by  temperament  rather  than 
by  rule  or  reason. 

1542.  Hemessen,  Jan  van.  Madonna  and  Child.  The 
Child  is  restless  but,  generally  speaking,  the  picture 
is  good  in  sentiment  and  rather  fine  in  colour.  It 
was  formerly  ascribed  to  the  Bellini. 

2182.  Holbein  the  Younger,  Hans.  Portrait  of  an 
*  Old  Man,  This  portrait  was  once  supposed  to  be 
a  Diirer  but  it  comes  nearer  to  being  a  Holbein. 
There  is  little  certainty  about  its  attribution  to 
Holbein,  however.  It  is  an  excellent  portrait  of 
a  large-nosed,  flabby-faced  old  man,  handsomely 
done  in  the  coat  and  with  fairly  well-drawn  hands. 
Amberger  might  have  painted  it. 

1543.  Jordaens,  Jakob.  Judgment  of  Solomon.  The 
picture  is  rather  good  in  colour  and  composition 
though  a  little  slight  and  perhaps  pretty  for  Jor- 
daens. It  was  formerly  attributed  to  Rubens.  It 
belongs  to  some  Rubens  follower  other  than  Jor- 
daens. 

1544.    Marriage  of  St.   Catherine.     This  picture,   as 

also  No.  1543,  was  formerly  assigned  to  Rubens, 
where  it  was  even  less  acceptable  than  to  Jordaens. 
It  apparently  has  very  little  of  either  painter  in  its 
make-up  though  by  no  means  a  poor  picture. 

1546.   Meleager  and  Atalanta.     It  is  not  Jordaens 

at  his  best.  He  is  not  to  be  found  here  at  Madrid 
in  his  gayest  colours  and  most  brilliant  workman- 
ship. There  is  good  painting,  however,  in  the  heads 
of  this  No.  1546. 


24  THE  PRADO 

1547.    Pomona,    This   is,   perhaps,  a  genuine  Jor- 

daens  though  not  more  satisfactory  than  the  other 
examples  set  down  to  him.  The  grouping  is  bad 
and  the  canvas  is  littered  with  unrelated  material. 
There  is  good  painting  in  spots  and  some  good  col- 
our. 

1550.    Three  Musicians,     A  free  sketch,  extravagant 

in  characterisation  but  possessed  of  considerable 
force.  It  is  easily  done.  No.  1549  should  be  com- 
pared with  the  Borro  portrait  at  Berlin  (No.  413a) 
for  resemblances  of  style.  See  the  note  on  the 
Borro. 

855.  Juanes,  Juan  de.  Portrait  of  Don  Luis  de  Cas- 
telvi.  An  elaborately  costumed  portrait  rather 
hard  in  its  drawing,  but  of  considerable  force.  It 
cannot  be  dismissed  as  the  work  of  an  unimpor- 
tant painter,  for  it  has  too  much  life  and  character 
about  it  for  that. 

838-  1  Scenes  from  the  Life  of  St,  Stephen,     Five 

842  J  panels  from  a  retable  showing  to  advantage  the 
style  of  Juan  de  Juanes  following  Italy,  probably 
at  second  hand,  through  the  Italianised  Flemings. 
It  is  respectable  but  not  very  interesting  work. 

504.   Leonardo   da   Vinci    (Copy   of).     Mona   Lisa, 

Before  and  after  the  disappearance  of  the  Mona 
Lisa  from  the  Louvre  there  were  not  wanting  "  au- 
thorities" who  claimed  this  portrait  as  the  one  and 
only  original  Mona  Lisa;  but  one  has  only  to  study 
the  hair,  the  white  scarf,  the  eyes,  brows,  hands, 
shadows  to  be  sure  that  it  has  all  the  timidity  and 
weakness  of  a  bad  copy.  It  is  so  bad  that  one 
wonders  how  it  ever  could  have  been  thought  an 
original  by  any  one. 


MANTEGNA,  ANDREA  25 

240.  Lotto,  Lorenzo.  A  Bridal  Couple.  Evidently 
*  these  are  portraits  of  a  pair  of  lovers  or  married 
folk.  They  are  richly  dressed  and  held  together 
by  a  genius  of  marriage  at  the  top.  Lotto  himself 
described  the  work  in  his  manuscript  list  of  por- 
traits, in  the  library  at  Bergamo,  as  "Messer 
Marsilio  and  his  bride  with  the  little  Cupid."  The 
shy  little  bride  has  Lotto's  fine  feeling,  the  man's 
face  is  a  study,  and  even  the  little  Love  is  a  psy- 
chological problem.  The  picture  is  very  charming 
and  one  of  Lotto's  most  engaging  studies,  though 
it  is  not  a  mature  piece  of  painting.  It  was  saved 
from  the  fire  of  1734  and  has  also  escaped  the  re- 
storer, though  the  hands  are  over-cleaned.  Its 
decorative  appeal  is  considerable.  And  its  novelty 
does  not  go  unnoticed.  It  is  not  often  that  the  gal- 
lery haunter  meets  anything  so  out  of  the  ordinary. 

242.  Luini,  Bernardino.  Holy  Family.  In  senti- 
ment it  is  merely  sweet  and  over-done;  in  colour  it 
is  hot.  This  is  one  of  Luini's  facile  performances 
— nothing  more. 

243.    The  Daughter  of  Herodias.      Even  in   tragic 

scenes  Luini  purls  and  prattles.  He  never  rises  to 
a  pitch  of  pride  or  fury  or  tragedy.  He  lisps  about 
murder  and  uses  colours  fitted  for  a  lady's  boudoir 
when  he  might  have  employed  clarion  tones.  But 
that  was  the  nature  of  the  man.  He  never  pos- 
sessed or  showed  any  real  strength. 

248.    Mantegna,   Andrea.    Death  of  the   Virgin.    A 

fine  picture  by  a  great  master.  What  beautiful  col- 
our! What  a  wonderful  setting  of  figures  in  an 
architectural  frame  looking  out  upon  a  superb 
landscape — a  landscape  modern  enough  in  spirit  to 
have  been  done  yesterday !    What  fine  types,  robes. 


* 


26  THE  PRADO 

embroidered  borders,  and  candle  holders!  Notice 
the  action  of  the  figure  with  the  palm  at  the  left 
and  the  faces  of  the  singers  at  the  right.  Finally, 
stand  back  and  look  at  the  set-in  of  the  whole 
group,  the  tonal  quality  and  the  atmospheric  effect 
of  the  picture.  It  belongs  to  Mantegna's  early 
period. 

1513  1  Master  of  Fl^tnalle.     St.  John  and  Donor  and 

1514  J  St.  Barbara.     Two  panels  that  do  not  seem  de- 
*        signed  as  a  diptych  and  yet  are  undoubtedly  by 

the  same  hand.  They  are,  however,  not  two  sepa- 
rate panels  that  have  been  brought  together,  but 
possibly  parts  of  an  altar-piece.  The  painter  is 
likely  the  so-called  Master  of  Flemalle.  The  St. 
Barbara  in  the  green  robe  is  very  like  the  green- 
robed  Magdalen  in  the  National  Gallery,  London 
(No.  654),  now  attributed  to  (the  School  of)  Robert 
Campin,  which  brings  it  within  the  Master  of 
Flemalle's  circle,  the  two  being  considered  identical 
by  modern  critics.  Just  who  did  the  Master  of 
Flemalle  pictures  is,  however,  still  in  some  doubt. 
The  St.  Barbara  panel  here  is  the  more  interesting 
in  both  composition  and  colour.  The  saint  in  her 
Gothic  room  is  lovely  in  sentiment  and  colour, 
the  drawing  is  sharp  and  accurate  but  not  narrow 
or  small,  the  still-life  is  excellent,  and  the  little 
landscape  is  very  picturesque.  The  interior  is 
similar  to  that  of  the  Annunciation  (No.  2202)  in 
the  Louvre.  The  St.  John  panel  (No.  1513)  is  in 
attitude  and  type  less  reminiscent  of  Van  der 
Weyden — a  suggestion  made  by  Dr.  Voll — than 
of  Memling.  The  right  hand  and  arm  are  re- 
touched, as  also  the  head  of  the  donor.  See  No. 
1887,  assigned  to  Van  der  Weyden  but  possibly  by 
the  Master  of  Flemalle.  • 


MORALES,  LUIS  DE  27 

1557.  Memling,  Hans.  Adoration  of  Kings.  This  is 
*  said  to  be  a  repetition  with  variations  of  the  trip- 
tych in  the  Hospital  of  St.  John  at  Bruges.  It  has 
the  look  of  a  varied  school  copy,  though  the  central 
panel  is  good  enough  for  Memling  himself.  Rep- 
lica or  copy,  it  has  decided  merit.  The  Madonna 
of  the  central  panel  is  charming  in  sentiment,  the 
balanced  composition  is  restful,  and  the  landscape 
at  the  back  very  lovely.  What  superb  reds,  blues, 
greys,  golds!  And  again  what  texture  painting! 
The  left  wing  is  more  prosaic,  less  satisfactory,  than 
the  right  one.  Notice  the  charming  townscape  in 
the  right  wing  and  the  beautiful  kneeling  angels. 

1559.  Metsys,  Quentin.  Ecce  Homo,  A  triptych  of 
some  dramatic  quality.  The  drawing  is  perhaps 
sharp,  especially  in  the  hands,  but  it  is,  neverthe- 
less, rather  forceful.  The  colour  is  excellent — in 
the  wings  particulariy.  One  cannot  see  it  well  in 
its  present  (basement)  placing,  but  it  seems  to  have 
distinct  quality.  The  attribution  to  Metsys  may 
be  questioned.  See  also  the  Madonna  No.  1562, 
put  down  to  Metsys,  and  also  the  note  on  the 
Patinir  (No.  1615). 

57.  Michelangelo  Buonarroti,  School  of.  The 
Flagellation  of  Christ,  A  picture  of  exaggerated 
drawing  in  the  muscles  and  mannered  use  of  the 
broken  line  to  vary  the  flowing  line,  as,  for  instance, 
in  the  arms  and  elbows.  It  is  an  open  question 
who  did  it — a  question  hardly  worthy  of  much  pur- 
suit or  argument. 

943.    Morales,  Luis  de.     Presentation  in  the  Temple. 

There  is  a  mixture  of  styles  and  influences  in  this 
picture  which  was  apparently  much  admired  by  no 
less  a  person  than  II  Greco.     The  beginnings  of  II 


« 


28  THE  PRADO 

Greco's  mannerisms  seem  to  show  here.  The  pic- 
ture is  fairly  good  considering  Morales  was  always 
a  weak  painter. 

946.   Madonna  and  Child.    The   types  seem  the 

precursors  of  II  Greco's  strange  people.  The  sen- 
timent is  strained  and  the  surface  too  smooth,  but 
the  colour  is  rather  good. 

2107.  More,  Antonio.  Portrait  of  a  Buffoon.  The 
sitter  looks  more  like  a  tragic  actor  than  a  buffoon. 
Even  his  deformities  seem  more  tragic  than  amus- 
ing.    A  fine  head  and  an  excellent  Moro. 

2108.    Queen   Mary   of  England.      What   a   distinct 

and  clear  characterisation  not  only  of  the  Queen 
but  of  the  positive  English  type.  Moro  could,  on 
occasion,  keep  himself  out  of  a  portrait  or,  at  least, 
allow  his  sitter  the  proper  prominence  and  subor- 
dinate himself.  This  portrait  is  done  with  exact- 
ness, tightness,  even  rigidity,  as  though  poured  in 
a  form  and  cast,  but  with  good  results  as  regards 
the  complete  work.  Moro  never  went  beyond  it. 
It  is  one  of  his  masterpieces.  Notice  the  modelling 
of  the  face  and  forehead.  It  is  inexorable  and  un- 
yielding but  true  after  its  kind.  The  canvas  has 
an  interesting  history.  It  was  painted  for  Charles 
V  and  seen  by  Philip  II  before  the  marriage  with 
the  English  Queen.  She  holds  in  her  hand  the  red 
rose  of  the  House  of  Lancaster. 

21101  Portrait  of  the  Emperor  and  the  Empress  of 

2111  J  Austria.  These  are  state  portraits — official  affairs 
— but  they  are  not  to  be  dismissed  lightly.  They 
are  hard  in  drawing  but,  nevertheless,  imposing 
works.  Their  merit  is,  perhaps,  more  superficial 
than  profound,  but  that,  it  may  be  supposed,  suited 
the  need  and  the  occasion. 


MAZO,  JUAN  BAUTISTA  DEL  29 

2114.    Portrait  of  an  Unknown  Lady,     It  IS  almost 

*  as  good  as  a  Holbein.  The  head  is  sharply  drawn 
but  full  of  character,  of  force,  of  truth.  The  hands 
are  knotty,  but  is  there  not  some  truth  of  character 
— some  truth  of  fact  to  the  original — even  in  this? 
A  fine  portrait. 

262.  Moroni,  Giovanni  Battista.  Portrait  of  a  Vene- 
tian Captain.  It  is  not  one  of  Moroni's  most 
compelling  portraits.  The  figure  stands  badly 
and  looks  weary.  Possibly  both  of  these  features 
were  seen  in  the  original.  The  head,  however,  is 
not  well  joined  to  the  body,  which  was  probably 
not  so  true  to  the  original,  and  the  background  of 
wall  and  pilaster  is  awkward  in  its  drawing.  The 
red  velvet  is  well  done  and  also  the  hands. 

888.  Maze,  Juan  Bautista  del.     Mariana  of  Austria. 

A  portrait  by  the  son-in-law  of  Velasquez  and  in 
the  style  of  Velasquez  but  coarser,  less  noble,  less 
true,  though  by  no  means  a  poor  picture.  Its  sim- 
plicity and  directness  with  a  Velasquez  breadth  of 
view  and  treatment  are  all  attractive.  The  back- 
ground is  excellent  as  is  also  the  curtain  at  the  left. 
It  is  an  important  Mazo. 

889.  View  of  Saragossa.  A  commanding  and  im- 
pressive townscape  with  a  big  sweep  of  background, 
a  fine  sky,  good  atmosphere,  and  good  colour.  The 
well-drawn  figures  are  said  to  be  by  Velasquez,  but 
that  merely  means  that  they  are  thought  to  be  by 
a  different  hand  from  the  one  that  did  the  landscape. 
There  seems  little  reason  for  such  thinking.  How 
well  these  figures  hold  their  place  in  the  foreground 
and  keep  in  relation  with  the  middle  distance  and 
background!  Mazo,  because  he  stood  in  a  pupil's 
relation  to  Velasquez,  is  not  to  be  dismissed  with  a 


* 


30  THE  PRADO 

smile.  He  was  a  landscape  painter  of  very  pro- 
nounced ability.  And  there  is  nothing  about  these 
figures  he  could  not  have  painted.  The  sky  here 
has  been  repainted  and  the  whole  picture  retouched 
by  restorers. 

1214.   Calle  de  la  Reina,     An  interesting  if  somewhat 

darkened  landscape,  formerly  attributed  to  Velas- 
quez, and  as  a  Velasquez  much  praised  by  art 
writers.  It  has  not  changed  of  recent  years,  and 
as  a  Mazo  is  still  to  be  admired.  There  are  a  dozen 
of  these  Mazo  landscapes  here  in  the  Prado,  and 
they  are  all  worthy  of  study.  Notice  the  sea  piece 
No.  896  and  the  small  picture  No.  892. 

972 1  Murillo,  Bartholome  Esteban.  Immaculate 
974  J  Conception.  Two  examples  of  a  theme  that  Mu- 
rillo painted  a  number  of  times.  They  are  well 
enough  done  and  not  exactly  negligible  though 
they  have  (in  company  with  the  one  in  the  Louvre) 
an  exaggerated  reputation.  They  are  too  senti- 
mental and  too  pretty  in  colour  to  be  of  lasting  ex- 
cellence in  art.  One  wearies  of  their  lack  of  spirit 
and  force.  The  drawing  is  feeble.  Look  at  the 
hands  and  the  eyes — to  go  no  further. 

993.    St,  Elizabeth  of  Hungary.     It  is  difficult  to 

overcome  one's  prejudices  against  Murillo.  He  is 
so  merely  pretty,  so  wanting  in  technical  force,  so 
abounding  in  overwrought  sentiment  that  one  can 
have  small  patience  in  looking  at  a  roomful  of  his 
pictures  such  as  the  one  here  in  the  Prado.  He 
shows  to  better  advantage  at  Seville,  but  the  rep- 
resentation here  is  adequate  enough.  This  St. 
Elizabeth  picture  is  one  of  his  best.  It  is  not  badly 
drawn  though  much  posed  in  the  figures,  and  is 
fairly  well  put  together;  but  it  is  weak,  wanting  in 


* 


MURILLO,  BARTHOLOME  ESTEBAN  31 

vim  and  spirit.  Everything  about  it  is  soft  and 
melting.  The  old  woman  on  the  step  is  the  best 
figure  in  it.  St.  Elizabeth  herself  is  velvety  all 
through — the  face  as  well  as  the  dress.  The  col- 
our lacks  in  distinction,  as  the  light  in  truth.  The 
foreground  does  not  agree  with  the  background  in 
illumination.  Had  the  background  view  at  the 
right  been  curtained  off,  it  would  have  matched 
and  agreed  with  the  left  side  of  the  picture.  As  it 
is,  the  lighting  is  arbitrary — different  in  each  side. 
The  whole  picture  proves  unsatisfactory  wherever 
you  probe  into  it.  But  it  is  celebrated  and  much 
admired. 

975.    The  Virgin  of  the  Rosary.     A  typical  Murillo 

Madonna  that  irresistibly  awakens  memories  of 
cheap  chromo  reproductions.  The  prettiness  and 
the  weakness  of  it  will  not  down.  Even  a  physi- 
cally hardened  character  like  St.  Jerome  (No.  988) 
appears  soft,  smooth,  and  delicate  to  Murillo*s  eye 
and  brush. 

962  1  The  Infant  Christ.    Here  is  Murillo  in  his 

964  \  most  popular  phase — at  his  best  technically,  per- 

965  J  haps,  and  at  his  worst  sentimentally.     How  sadly 

inferior  they  are,  how  wanting  in  vitality!  They 
are  powder-box  affectations. 

961.  Adoration  of  Shepherds.  Perhaps  this  pic- 
ture is  as  satisfactory  as  any  Murillo  in  the  room. 
The  kneeling  shepherd  does  not  kneel  well  but  his 
feet,  head,  and  hands  are  not  badly  done.  Every- 
thing else  in  the  picture  is  too  smoothly  sentimen- 
tal, including  the  sheep,  the  cow,  and  the  chickens. 
Inevitably,  mental  strength  or  weakness  betrays 
itself  through  the  brush  as  through  the  pen,  and 
obviously  Murillo  was  not  Velasquez. 


32  THE  PRADO 

978  1  Aliar-Pieces.    These  are  large  canvases  with 

979  J  effective  subjects  for  church  worship  but  with  not 

enough  real  art  about  them  to  stand  the  glare  of 
gallery  exposition. 

1022- 1  Pacheco,  Francisco.  Four  Saints,  These  four 
1025  J  panels  are  by  the  first  master  and  the  father-in- 
law  of  Velasquez.  They  are  interesting  in  the  his- 
tory of  Spanish  art.  The  drawing  is  hard  and 
rather  rudimentary  but  very  honest.  Pacheco  was 
a  writer  as  well  as  a  painter  and  a  man  of  note  in 
his  day. 

269.    Palma  Vecchio.     Adoration  of  Shepherds.     It  has 

a  look  of  Palma  but  possibly  comes  nearer  to,  say, 
Bonifazio  or  his  school.  The  Madonna  and  Child 
are  slightly  reminiscent  of  Titian  as  are  also  the 
shepherds.  The  landscape  is  a  bit  crude,  the  col- 
our excellent.  It  is  by  no  means  a  poor  picture 
though  now  in  rather  bad  condition. 

1037.  Pantoja  de  la  Cruz,  Juan.  Portrait  of  an  Un--  \ 
known  Lady.  A  very  beautiful  dress,  done  in  the 
Sanchez  Coello  style  but  with  less  accuracy.  The 
type  is  a  lofty  one  and  perhaps  the  painter  shows 
some  consciousness  of  that  fact.  The  colour  is  dull 
and  the  sitter  is  rather  subordinated  to  the  dress. 

1031.  Queen  Isabella  of  Valois.  In  the  style  of  An- 
tonio Moro  or  Sanchez  Coello.  The  painter  was  a 
pupil  of  the  latter.  It  is  official  portraiture  but 
has  considerable  "go"  about  it. 

1033.  Charles  V.  It  is  too  hard  and  uncompromis- 
ing in  its  rigidity.  Look  at  the  table,  for  instance. 
As  for  the  sitter,  all  portraits  of  him  here  at  Madrid 
pale  before  the  Titian. 


PATINIR,  JOACHIM  33 

279.  Parmigianino,  Francesco  Mazzola.  Portrait 
of  a  Man,  probably  Lorenzo  Cibo.  With  a  less 
disturbing  background,  the  vista  at  the  right  omit- 
ted, and  the  name  of  a  great  painter  on  the  frame 
we  might  think  this  a  very  good  portrait.  The 
head  is  well  done  if  rather  slippery  in  the  handling. 
The  painter  was  inclined  to  be  overfacile  with  his 
brush  and  not  serious  enough  in  his  mental  attitude. 

280.    Portrait  of  a  Lady  and  Three  Children.     These 

are  probably  the  wife  and  children  of  Lorenzo  Cibo 
shown  in  the  portrait  No.  279.  The  figures  are  too 
conscious  in  their  attitudes  and  the  whole  picture 
shows  mannerisms,  but  the  costumes  are  beautiful 
and  the  painting  is  decidedly  good. 

611.  Patinir,  Joachim.    Flight  into  Egypt.    This  is 

*  the  same  Madonna  in  blue  and  white,  with  basket 
and  bags,  that  one  meets  with  elsewhere  under  the 
names  of  David  and  Isenbrant.  The  landscape  is 
more  varied  and  spotty  than  in  No.  1615  or  No. 
1613.  It  is  a  handsome  work,  however,  though  a 
little  harsh  in  its  relations  of  light  and  colour  and 
not  having  the  warmth  of  No.  1613. 

612.   Flight  into  Egypt,     A  landscape  with  more 

*  tonal  quality  in  it  than  any  of  the  others  here 
given  to  Patinir.  It  may  be  questioned  if  Patinir 
did  it,  but  it  is  a  handsome  landscape. 

613.   Flight  into  Egypt.    There  are  at  least  half  a 

*  dozen  of  these  Flights  into  Egypt,  with  a  Madonna 
in  blue  seated  on  a  bank  and  beside  her  a  basket 
and  white  bag,  in  the  European  galleries — notably 
at  Berlin  (No.  608)  and  Antwerp  (No.  64).  They 
are  variously  assigned  to  Patinir,  David,  Isen- 
brant, et  al.     This  one  seems  somewhat  repainted 


34  THE  PRADO 

in  the  face  of  the  Madonna  and  Child,  but  the 
group  is,  nevertheless,  a  charming  one.  In  its 
present  basement  placing  (1912)  it  cannot  be 
properly  seen.  Once  attributed  to  Lucas  van 
Leyden. 

1614.   Landscape.     In  the  same  vein  as  shown  in  the 

landscape  of  No.  1615  but  it  is  now  (1912)  badly 
hung  and  difficult  to  see. 

1615.    Temptation  of  St,  Anthony.     A  fine,  big  land- 

*  scape  with  figures  supposed  to  have  been  painted 
by  Jerome  Bosch.  The  figures  are  certainly  grace- 
ful and  make  a  brilliant  spot  of  colour  and  light  on 
the  dark  ground.  What  sweeping  robes  and  attrac- 
tive poses  I  But  the  landscape  is  the  better  part 
of  the  picture.  Patinir  never  did  anything  finer. 
The  scene  is  panoramic  but  holds  together  ex- 
tremely well.  The  figures  were  formerly  thought 
to  be  by  Quentin  Metsys  and  are  so  thought  by 
some  present-day  critics.     They  are  excellent. 

1616.   Landscape,    With  a  dawn  effect  behind  the 

*  hills — or  at  least  it  may  be  so  regarded  without  dis- 
tortion of  meaning.  A  fine  view  of  sea  and  land, 
a  little  hard,  to  be  sure,  but  true  as  well  as  decora- 
tive. And  probably  by  Patinir.  It  seems  to  have 
more  indications  of  authenticity  than  many  other 
examples  ascribed  to  him. 

1617.   St,  Francis,    A  picture  of  merit  but  with  little 

about  it  to  indicate  Patinir.  There  is  fine  tonal 
quality  in  it.  It  is  probably  by  the  painter  of  No. 
1612,  whoever  he  may  be. 

1317.  Pereda  y  Salgado,  Antonio.  An  ill-drawn  and 
rather  heavily  painted  picture  that  has  good  colour 
about  it.     Even  the  roses  are  hard  and  heavy  but 


PORDENONE  35 

handsome.  Whether  the  picture  is  by  Pereda  or 
not,  who  knows? 

345.  Piombo,  Sebastiano  del.  Christ  Bearing  the 
*  Cross,  Large  and  Michelangelesque  in  the  hands 
and  drapery  with  a  suggestion  of  Giorgione  and  Ve- 
netian painting  in  the  figures  at  the  left,  especially 
the  warrior  in  armour.  The  figure  of  Christ  is 
grandly  done  but  not  over-done  in  either  action  or 
agony.  The  drapery  and  hands  are  excellent.  The 
landscape  is  half  Venetian  and  so,  too,  is  the  colour. 
The  high  light  in  the  robe  is  washed  out  after  the 
Florentine  manner  of  the  time.  Somewhat  black- 
ened and  injured,  and  also  doubted  by  some  as 
regards  its  authenticity,  but  it  is  nearer  to  Sebas- 
tiano than  any  other  painter  we  now  know.  An- 
other version  at  St.  Petersburg  (No.  17)  and  several 
replicas  in  European  galleries  with  no  great  cer- 
tainty about  any  of  them. 

287.  Pontorino  (Jacopo  Carucci).    Holy  Family,    It 

is  a  little  heavy  in  spirit  and  lacking  in  original 
impulse.  The  Madonna  is  reminiscent  of  Andrea 
del  Sarto,  which  possibly  accounts  for  the  attribu- 
tion to  Pontormo,  who  was  a  pupil  of  Andrea. 

288.  Pordenone,  Giovanni  Antonio   Licinio.     Ma-- 

donna  with  St.  Roch  and  St,  Anthony  of  Padua, 

This  picture  is  now  given  to  Pordenone  though  it 
was  long  considered  a  Giorgione  and  is  so  yet  by 
some  critics.  Its  attribution  makes  little  differ- 
ence to  the  lover  of  art  for  its  own  sake  rather  than 
for  its  name  or  pedigree.  The  picture  is  of  small 
merit  whoever  painted  it.  The  Madonna  and  Child 
are  not  inferior,  in  fact,  they  are  very  good  in  senti- 
ment, drapery,  colour;  but  the  chief  interest  in 
them  is  archaeological  rather  than  aesthetic.     Did 


36  THE  PRADO 

they  inspire  the  Gipsy  Madonna  put  down  to 
Titian  at  Vienna  (No.  176)  or  were  they  deliber- 
ately taken  from  the  Gipsy  Madonna  and  here 
reproduced  by  some  second-rate  follower  of  Titian 
and  Giorgione?  The  latter  suggestion  is  the  more 
probable  because  the  rest  of  the  picture  does  not 
show  a  skilled  hand  and  is  rather  cheaply  done. 
The  green  drapery  at  the  back,  the  white  banner, 
the  stone  ledge,  and  the  landscape  are  crude;  the 
St.  Francis  is  more  or  less  foolish;  and  the  St. 
Roch  is  a  make-believe,  a  dummy  figure.  The  St. 
Roch  is  in  pose  and  figure  seen  again  in  Cariani's 
Woman  Taken  in  Adultery  (No.  11)  in  the  Ber- 
gamo Gallery,  which  is  suggestive  of  this  Madrid 
picture,  for  it  is  about  up  to  the  level  of  a  mediocre 
Cariani.  There  is  nothing  about  it  that  could  not 
have  been  done  by  any  one  of  half  a  dozen  Gior- 
gione followers.  If  Giorgione  himself  had  to  rest 
his  fame  on  this  work  we  should  hardly  see  his 
name  to-day  in  the  Venetian  empyrean.  The  pic- 
ture has  been  injured  by  repainting  and  was,  per- 
haps, never  finished  originally. 

289.    Portrait  of  an  Unknown  Lady.     This  portrait 

has  been  so  injured  that  one  can  hardly  guess  at 
its  origin.  It  is  pretty  certainly  not  by  Pordenone. 
It  is  still  attractive  though  all  quality  in  the  paint 
itself  has  been  submerged  and  lost  in  the  cleaning- 
room  processes. 

2131.    Potter,    Paul.     Landscape   with    Cattle.     In   the 

style  of  Potter — that  is,  with  a  dark  sky,  hard  cat- 
tle, and  dry  painting.     It  is  fairly  well  drawn. 

296.  Raphael  Sanzio.  Holy  Family.  It  is  an  early 
and  a  genuine  Raphael,  in  good  condition,  but  not 
an  important  example  of  the  painter  by  any  means. 


RAPHAEL  SANZIO  37 

The  sentiment  is  pure  enough  but  not  very  intense 
and  the  colour  is  neither  good  nor  bad.  The  pic- 
ture lacks  in  repose  and  is,  perhaps,  rendered  top- 
heavy  by  the  Joseph  who  stands  badly  and  has 
enormous  hands — the  right  one  slightly  abraded. 
The  Madonna  and  Child  are,  on  the  contrary, 
gracefully  done  with  good  drapery.  The  figures 
are  placed  well  on  the  panel  and  there  is  a  charm- 
ing landscape  at  the  back. 

Virgin  of  the  Fish.    This  is  a  large  picture  but 

not  a  satisfactory  or  even  a  good  Raphael.  He 
probably  did  little  more  than  prepare  the  design 
for  it.  The  composition  is  balanced,  formal,  and 
very  apparent.  The  placing  of  the  Madonna  on 
the  platform,  the  drawing  of  the  step,  the  chair, 
the  curtain,  the  lion  are  all  rather  clumsily  carried 
out.  The  Madonna  herself  is  graceful  enough  but 
the  appearance  of  the  left  foot  is  awkward.  The 
angel  and  Tobit  are  the  most  attractive  of  the  fig- 
ures. The  colour  is  not  wonderful  and  the  flesh- 
notes  are  hectic.  The  surface  suggests  the  presence 
of  more  than  one  hand.  Somewhat  injured  by 
cleaning  and  repainting. 

Christ  Bearing  the  Cross  {Lo  Spasimo).     It  is 

a  large  picture  possibly  designed  by  Raphael  and 
probably  painted  by  Giuho  Romano  or  some  one 
very  near  to  him.  It  is  a  very  good  group  and  a 
good  picture  though  now  injured  and  repainted. 
The  figures  are  rather  academic,  the  colour  over- 
warm,  the  landscape  impressive. 

299.    Portrait  of  Cardinal  Alidosio.     An   imposing 

portrait  not  only  in  its  costume  of  red  but  in  its 
thin-visaged  sitter.  The  drawing  is  clear-cut  in 
the  outlines  and  accented  in  the  brows,  nose,  and 


♦ 


38  THE  PRADO 

mouth.  The  eyes  are  striking  though  a  bit  con- 
ventional. Of  course  this  is  not  portraiture  of  a 
Titian- Velasquez  kind  or  quality,  but  nevertheless, 
and  for  all  its  thin  handling,  it  is  very  positive  and 
compelling  work.  It  is  simple,  true  so  far  as  it 
goes,  and  precise.  How  well  the  reds  are  used  and 
the  white  of  the  sleeve  is  given!  It  has  not  depth 
nor  body,  it  shows  little  more  than  two  dimensions, 
but  you  still  cannot  get  away  from  the  fact  that  it 
is  a  notable  performance  in  portraiture.  The  sur- 
face is  glassy  and  uncomfortable.  On  wood  and 
cleaned  too  much. 

300.   Visitation,     It  is  not  by  Raphael  though  his 

name  is  written  upon  it  in  letters  of  gold.  A  ver- 
sion of  the  head  of  St.  Elizabeth  is  in  the  Louvre 
(No.  1509  bis)  under  the  same  magic  name  of 
Raphael,  but  that  proves  nothing  for  either  pic- 
ture. This,  however,  is  Raphaelesque  and  belongs 
somewhere  in  the  school  or  shop  of  Giulio  Romano. 
The  figures  are  well  drawn,  the  baptism  at  the 
back  is  graceful  in  its  small  figures,  the  colour  is 
rather  hot.     Injured  and  somewhat  repainted. 

301.  Holy  Family  (La  Perla).  This  picture  is  prob- 
ably by  the  painter  of  No.  303  though  there  is  some 
variation  in  the  workmanship.  It  came  out  of 
Giulio  Romano's  workshop  in  all  probability.  The 
shadows  are  blackish,  the  blues  disagreeably  cold, 
the  Madonna  unduly  pretty,  and  St.  Elizabeth  con- 
sciously sibylesque.  The  vista  with  St.  Joseph  at 
the  left  is  very  good.  It  is  a  hard,  glittering  picture 
that  has  been  kept  alive  for  many  years  because 
of  the  name  of  Raphael  tacked  to  it. 

302.    Madonna  of  the  Rose,    This  is  another  of  the 

supposed  Raphaels  in  the  Prado  which  does  not 


REMBRANDT  VAN  RYN  39 

stand  up  well  under  examination.  It  is  fairly  well 
composed  and  the  drapery  is  handsome.  The  col- 
our, too,  is  attractive.  But  the  Raphaelesque  tang 
or  air  about  it  is  one  that  was  given  very  often 
by  Raphael's  numerous  followers.  This  is  prob- 
ably some  sort  of  Raphael  amalgam  produced  by 
pupils  in  his  school.  Possibly  Raphael  designed  it. 
It  has  been  much  retouched. 

303.  Holy  Family.  The  cold  blues  and  the  land- 
scape in  this  picture  with  the  green  of  the  robe 
and  the  sooty  flesh  suggest  some  one  of  the  Fer- 
rarese  School  following  Raphael  though  it  is  more 
probably  of  the  School  of  Giulio  Romano.  It  is 
certainly  not  by  Raphael  and  just  as  certainly  not 
a  great  picture. 

304.    Portrait  of  Andrea  Navagera.      This  portrait 

is  nowhere  near  Raphael  nor  is  it  a  work  of  any 
great  merit.  This  statement  is  equally  true  of 
No.  305.  They  are  copies  after  portraits  in  the 
Doria  Gallery,  Rome. 

2132.    Rembrandt  van  Ryn.     Queen  Artemisia.    The 

central  figure  of  the  queen  is  rather  fine  in  costume 
and  flowing  hair.  The  bulk  of  the  figure  is  also 
well  given  and  the  head  well  drawn.  The  attendant 
figures  are  done  in  a  more  perfunctory  manner. 
The  picture  has  not  the  look  of  a  Rembrandt,  and 
the  pallid  colour  rather  suggests  the  painter  of  the 
Young  Girl  (No.  812)  in  the  Hermitage  and  the 
Samson  at  Berlin  (No.  802).  The  signature  is  en- 
tirely too  prominent,  as  though  the  signer  was  fear- 
ful the  picture  could  not  speak  for  itself.  The 
queen  is  said  to  be  a  likeness  of  Saskia — the  paint- 
er's wife — though  no  one  knows  exactly  why  except 


40  THE  PRADO 

that  every  light-haired  model  in  Rembrandtesque 
pictures  is  alleged  to  be  a  Saskia. 

1062.  Ribalta,  Francisco  de.  St,  Francis,  It  is  hard 
in  the  drawing  of  the  saint  but  has  a  certain  real- 
ism, manifest  in  the  hands  and  feet,  that  influenced 
Ribera  and  perhaps  pointed  the  way  for  the  young 
Velasquez.  The  angel  is  rather  unusual  in  action 
and  interesting  in  colour. 

1065.    St,  John  and  St.  Matthew,     The  passion  of  it 

is  extravagant  and  the  shadows  are  blackish,  fol- 
lowing the  later  Italian  formula  of  Caravaggio, 
but  the  drawing  (in  the  feet  and  hands)  is  very 
well  done. 

1078.    Ribera,  Jusefe  (Lo  Spagnoletto).    St.  Andrew, 

*  A  strong  piece  of  modelling.  It  is  difficult  to  con- 
jure up  in  the  memory  a  picture  that  goes  beyond 
it  in  the  matter  of  realistic  modelling.  What  a 
head  and  what  a  body!  Never  mind  its  brutal 
blackness,  some  of  which  has  come  by  time;  at 
least  it  is  truthful  in  drawing.  Perhaps  it  is  not 
decoratively  pleasing  but  it  has  power. 

1115.   A  Hermit.    A  very  good  Ribera  with  much 

*  truth  to  fact  in  the  drawing  of  the  back,  shoulders, 
arm,  hand,  head.  Of  course  it  is  blackish  in  the 
shadows — more  now  than  when  painted.  Ribera 
followed  Caravaggio  and  came  by  his  blackness 
and  his  realism  (brutal  at  times)  honestly  enough. 

1069.  The  Trinity.  The  composition  is  a  little  un- 
easy and  awkward  and  the  colour  is  rather  brilliant 
for  Ribera.  Had  he  seen  the  work  of  II  Greco  at 
the  time  this  picture  was  done?  There  is  some- 
thing about  it  that  recalls  the  Dead  Christ  of  II 
Greco  in  the  long  gallery  of  this  Prado  Museum. 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  41 

1101.    Martyrdom  of  St.  Bartholomew.     There  IS  a 

*  roomful  of  Riberas  in  the  Prado,  but  they  throw  no 
new  light  on  his  artistic  personality  so  well  known 
through  his  many  pictures  in  European  galleries. 
Most  of  the  pictures  in  this  room  are  inferior  to 
the  St.  Andrew  (No.  1078).  The  St.  Bartholomew 
(No.  1101)  is  the  central  panel  on  the  east  wall 
and  is  possibly  the  second  Ribera  in  the  gallery. 
The  drawing  and  colouring  are  both  excellent. 

323.  Romano,  Giulio.  Noli  me  Tangere.  The  figure 
of  Christ  wants  in  right  feeling  and  in  dignity.  The 
action  is  theatrical  and  the  mood  seems  flippant. 
With  cold,  rather  forbidding  colour.  It  is  probably 
not  by  Giulio.  No.  322  comes  nearer  to  his  style 
but  is  not  an  important  picture.  See  the  notes 
on  the  Raphaels  in  this  gallery  for  works  executed 
by  Giulio  Romano. 

1637.  Rubens,  Peter  Paul.  The  Brazen  Serpent.  This 
canvas  is  conspicuously  signed  at  the  bottom  with 
the  name  of  Rubens,  which  is  so  suspicious  that 
one  is  not  surprised  to  find  every  feature  of  it  pro- 
claiming its  maker  to  be  Van  Dyck.  Compare  it 
with  the  Van  Dyck  Betrayal  (No.  1477  of  this 
gallery)  in  the  hands,  heads,  draperies,  painting  of 
the  hair,  colour  of  the  robes  and  flesh.  Compare 
also  the  nude  shoulders  and  bodies  of  the  men  in 
each.  There  is  little  doubt  of  its  being  a  Van 
Dyck.  It  may  have  been  touched  by  his  master, 
Rubens,  but  even  that  is  not  at  all  certain.  It  is 
a  palpable  Van  Dyck  probably  adapted  from  the 
Rubens  in  the  National  Gallery,  London  (No.  59),  in 
the  execution  of  which  Van  Dyck  also  had  a  hand. 

1638.   Adoration  of  Kings.    An  early  Rubens  done 

for  the  town  hall  in  Antwerp  about  1610,  taken 


42  THE  PRADO 

afterward  to  Madrid,  and  there,  later  on,  perhaps 
changed  somewhat  by  Rubens  himself.  It  is  not  a 
satisfactory  picture,  and  it  is  difficult  to  imagine 
Rubens  designing  such  a  huddled  group,  though  the 
diagonal  composition  which  he  so  much  affected 
is  here,  with  some  of  his  brilliant  colouring,  some 
of  his  types,  and  his  own  portrait  at  the  far  right. 
As  for  the  drawing,  it  is  pinched  in  scale,  notably 
in  the  three  kings,  in  the  Joseph,  in  the  Child.  In 
other  places  the  drawing  seems  almost  grotesque, 
as  in  the  small  page  in  the  foreground,  in  the  kneel- 
ing king  whose  hands  and  arms  do  not  agree  with 
his  head,  in  the  bust  of  the  Madonna,  in  the  heads 
of  the  camels.  Again,  the  painting  of  it  is  uneven. 
Look  at  the  wriggling,  snake-like  hair  of  the  kneel- 
ing king,  the  badly  rendered  gold  vessel  in  his 
hands,  the  feather  in  the  hat  of  the  negro  king  that 
repeats  the  smoke  of  the  torches  and  looks  like 
smoke,  the  hot  flesh-notes  of  the  Cupid  at  the  top. 
The  whole  picture  is  imposing  at  first  blush  but 
does  not  bear  analysis  too  well.  One  hardly  knows 
what  to  think  of  it.  Was  Rubens  ever  such  a 
blunderer  with  the  brush  at  any  time?  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  imagine  him  doing  that  arbour  and  the 
dreadful  vine  hanging  from  it  or  those  weird 
camels  with  the  dying  donkey  just  below  them. 
Compared  with  the  later  Adoration  at  Antwerp 
(No.  298),  this  is  a  very  tame  affair  and  almost  in- 
credible. 

1640.   Holy  Family.     It  is  not  easy  to  find  among 

*  the  many  pictures  attributed  to  Rubens  here  in  the 
Prado  a  picture  that  now  shows  his  undisturbed 
brush-work  to  advantage.  The  whole  group  of 
Rubenses  here  is  disappointing.  Some  of  them  are 
careless  originals,  others  are  merely  workshop  pic- 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  43 

tures,  many  of  them  have  been  sadly  repainted, 
and  none  of  them  shows  the  great  skill  and  supreme 
flowing  brush  of  this  great  master  of  painting. 
This  Holy  Family,  perhaps,  comes  as  near  to  him 
as  anything  in  the  gallery,  and  even  in  this  there  is 
some  doubt  about  his  having  done  certain  parts  of 
it.  It  is  probably  the  first  thought,  the  first  at- 
tempt for  a  larger  picture  now  in  the  National  Gal- 
lery, London  (No,  67).  It  is  decently  drawn,  with 
good  colour  and  a  fine  landscape,  whereas  the  larger 
London  picture,  done  in  his  workshop  by  pupils, 
perhaps,  is  ill  drawn,  with  a  poor  landscape  and 
with  very  careless  handling.  Yet  it  is  such  pic- 
tures as  this  No.  1640  in  the  Prado  that  must  be 
used  to  judge  Rubens's  pictures  here.  Allowance, 
of  course,  must  be  made  for  the  destruction  of  sur- 
faces by  cleaning  and  repainting.  With  Rubens's 
larger  pictures  on  canvas  it  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  their  surfaces  should  be  intact  or  their  bril- 
liancy of  colour  should  be  now  as  when  originally 
laid  in  by  the  master.  Reliance  must  be  upon  de- 
sign and  drawing  more  than  upon  surfaces.  And 
again  some  allowance  must  be  made  for  variation 
in  the  styles  of  the  master.  His  later  handling  is 
looser  than  his  earlier,  but  neither  of  them  revealed 
ineffectual  work  or  bad  drawing. 

1642.   The  Dead  Christ,     The  colour  is  chalky  as 

though  scumbled  over  by  a  later  hand  than  that 
of  Rubens.  The  design  is  a  Httle  weak  and  lacks 
in  force  and  that  large  command  of  line  and  form 
for  which  Rubens  was  famous.  The  figure  of 
Christ  is  wanting  in  vigour,  in  strength.  And  the 
relation  of  the  white  sheet  to  the  white  body  is  not 
well  given,  has  no  great  decision  about  it.  The 
drawing  is  not  false  or  untrue  but  merely  weak. 


44  THE  PRADO 

Possibly  the  picture  was  prettified  in  the  execution 
by  a  pupil. 

1644.    St.  George  and  the  Dragon.     The  picture  has 

no  marked  quahty  but  is  freely,  slashingly,  and 
probably  hastily  done.  Its  surface  is  quite  differ- 
ent from  some  of  the  loose,  "  bready  "  surfaces  in  the 
long  gallery  here.  Rubens  must  have  been  a  per- 
son of  vast  unevenness  of  handling  if  all  these  vary- 
ing canvases  are  to  be  put  down  to  his  brush.  This 
one  should  perhaps  be  assigned  to  him,  though 
pupils  may  have  worked  upon  it.  The  canvas  is 
pieced  out. 

1645.    Religious  Ceremony  of  Rudolph  of  Hapsburg. 

There  is  no  reason  to  think  that  Rubens  did  any 
part  of  it.  The  catalogue  gives  the  landscape  to 
Wildens.     Why  not  the  whole  picture  to  him? 

1650.   St.  Philip.    This  head  and  Nos.  1646,  1648, 

1653,  1654,  1656 — all  of  them  hanging  on  the  line 
together — are,  loosely  speaking,  in  the  manner  of 
Rubens  but  probably  not  by  him.  There  are  weak- 
nesses here  and  there  that  look  as  though  pupils 
may  have  worked  upon  them  or  copied  them  from 
other  originals.  They  are  commonplace.  And  yet 
the  brush-work  in  the  hair  and  beards  is  nearer  to 
Rubens  than  that  of  many  of  the  larger  and  more 
important-looking  canvases.  But  they  are  not 
interesting  works  and  there  is  something  very 
questionable  about  them. 

1658.   Centaurs  and  Lapiths.    This  and  the  foUow- 

*  ing  pictures  marked  "Metamorphoses  Series,"  and 
taken  from  Ovid,  were  done  in  Rubens*s  workshop 
at  Antwerp  and  sent  in  1638  to  King  Philip  at 
Madrid  for  his  shooting-lodge,  called  the  Torre 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  45 

de  la  Parada.  Over  a  hundred  pictures  were 
sent  to  Madrid  in  1638,  and  it  was  physically  im- 
possible that  Rubens  could  have  done  them  all. 
He  designed  them  and  left  the  execution  to  assis- 
tants in  the  shop.  The  pictures  declare  this  to-day. 
There  is  hardly  a  canvas  among  them  that  shows 
the  complete  work  and  hand  of  Rubens.  This 
Centaur  picture  (No.  1679)  is  typical  of  the  "  Met- 
amorphoses Series."  It  has  spirited  action  and 
good  drawing,  but  if  any  one  imagines  that  red 
drapery,  for  instance,  is  a  Rubens  red,  or  that  the 
drawing  of  the  figure  under  it,  or  the  head  of  the 
satyr  is  by  Rubens,  then  he  knows  not  the  great 
Fleming.  It  is  the  work  of  assistants.  The  orig- 
inal sketch  was  made  by  Rubens  and  is  now  in  the 
collection  of  the  Duke  of  Osuna,  but  the  picture 
was  executed  in  the  Rubens  workshop.  Rubens 
did  not  maintain  a  roomful  of  pupils  without  getting 
some  substantial  work  out  of  them.  Metamor- 
phoses Series. 

1659.   Rape  of  Proserpina.    It  belongs  to  the  Rubens 

workshop,  with  the  design  probably  by  the  master 
and  the  execution  by  pupils.  Rubens  may  have 
touched  it  with  a  few  final  strokes,  but  the  crudity 
of  the  high  lights  on  the  hair,  armour,  feathers 
point  to  a  less  certain  brush  than  his.  And  the 
drawing  of  Proserpina's  arms,  especially  the  right 
one,  what  can  be  said  in  defence  of  it?  Metamor- 
phoses Series. 

1660.   Banquet  of  Tereus,    There  is  much  tragic  fury 

about  it  and  much  headlong  action.  The  design 
speaks  for  Rubens,  the  execution  for  assistants. 
It  is  not  badly  done.  The  architecture  is  subor- 
dinated but  not  put  in  like  a  half-melted  palace 


46  THE  PRADO 

of  ice,  as  in  the  Garden  of  Love  (No.  1690),  with 
which  it  might  be  compared.  Yet  the  Garden  of 
Love  is  said  to  be  "all  Rubens"!  Metamorphoses 
Series. 

166L    Achilles  Discovered,     Compare  for  clarity  and 

*  purity,  with  some  certainty  in  the  handling,  this 
picture  with  the  Garden  of  Love  (No.  1690)  near 
it.  Compare  the  architecture,  for  instance,  or  the 
handling  of  the  dresses,  or  the  flesh-notes  with  their 
shadows,  or  the  colour  notes  of  red,  blue,  and  gold. 
Compare  especially  the  handling  of  the  hair. 
There  is  a  decided  difference  in  the  pictures,  though 
neither  shows  the  unimpaired  brush  of  Rubens. 
There  is  more  of  Rubens,  perhaps,  in  this  No.  1661 
than  in  the  No.  1690,  but  the  canvas  has  been  much 
cleaned  and  restored,  and  the  surface  is  greatly 
injured.  Notice  the  head,  neck,  and  cheek  of  the 
nearest  figure  holding  a  mirror,  how  they  have  been 
flattened  in  drawing  and  distorted  in  colour.  There 
is,  however,  some  brilliancy  left  in  the  picture.  Ru- 
bens "touched"  the  picture  with  his  "own  hand," 
as  he  expressed  it,  and  yet  it  is  not  now  typical  or 
characteristic  of  him.  Rubens  said  that  it  was  by 
'*  the  best  of  his  pupils,"  and  Van  Dyck  is  thought 
to  have  been  meant  in  that  reference;  but  how 
very  little  of  Van  Dyck  there  is  in  it!  Not  in  the 
Metamorphoses  Series  but  done  some  twenty  years 
earlier;  that  is,  about  1618. 

1662.    Atalanta  and  Meleager.    It  is  a  very  good  land- 

*  scape  though  crude  in  its  mass  of  central  shadow, 
and  cruder  still  in  its  perfunctory,  guessed-at  high 
lights.  There  is  good  movement  about  the  small 
figures.  Rubens  may  have  done  it,  though  one 
may  be  pardoned  for  entertaining  doubts  about  it. 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  47 

But  the  general  effect  is  good — too  good  for,  say, 
Wildens  or  Van  Uden,  but  not  good  enough  for 
Rubens.  It  is  similar  to  the  Brussels  landscape 
No.  391. 

Andromeda  and  Perseus,     Undoubtedly  from 

the  design  of  Rubens  and  possibly  executed  in  part 
by  his  hand.  The  figure  of  Perseus  is  slight,  but 
that  of  Andromeda  is  rather  fine.  Notice  the  depth 
of  red  in  the  cloak  of  Perseus  and  also  the  painting 
of  his  armour.  Notice  also  the  Cupid  above  and 
the  fine  sea  and  sky  at  the  back.  Somewhat  pieced 
out,  injured,  and  repainted,  but  with  something  of 
Rubens  still  in  it.  The  figure  of  Andromeda  is  pos- 
sibly a  variation  of  that  in  the  Berlin  picture  (No. 
776c).     Sent  to  Spain  after  the  painter's  death. 

Ceres  and  Pomona.     It  is  very  like  No.  1672, 

with  fruit  supposed  to  be  by  Snyders  and  figures 
supposed  to  be  by  Rubens.  The  surfaces  in  both 
pictures  deny  and  contradict  the  surfaces  in  other 
pictures  put  down  to  Rubens.  They  are  probably 
both  the  work  of  assistants,  who  may  have  "fin- 
ished" the  picture  after  Rubens's  death.  This  one 
is  still  pure  and  clean  in  the  fruit  though  hurt  in 
the  figures. 

Diana     and    Nymphs     Surprised     by     Satyrs. 

For  a  processional  composition  it  has  great  move- 
ment, and  the  figures  are  handsomely  knit  together 
in  a  long,  frieze-like  group.  Rubens  planned  it, 
without  doubt,  but  the  execution  must  be  assigned 
to  that  Antwerp  picture  factory  over  which  he 
presided.  Look  closely  at  the  brush-work  in  the 
heads  and  the  hair.  Rubens,  the  most  fluid  writer 
with  the  brush  in  the  history  of  art,  never  did  such 
heavy  work  at  any  time  in  his  career.     It  is  more 


48  THE  PRADO 

like  the  work  of  Quellen.  The  canvas  speaks  for 
itself,  and  no  documentary  record  about  it  is  needed 
in  contravention  or  denial. 

1667.   Orpheus  and  Euridice.    The  same  tale  is  told 

here  as  in  No.  1658.  The  sketch  for  the  picture  is 
in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of  Osuna;  but  the 
picture  was  probably  done  by  pupils  and  touched  by 
Rubens's  own  hand — no  more.  It  is  not  here  or 
elsewhere  a  question  of  whether  one  prefers  a 
smooth  or  a  rough  surface,  but  rather  the  sort  of 
surface  that  Rubens  produced.  He  never  at  any 
time  did  the  bready  surface  of  the  aged  Titian  or 
missed  his  drawing  with  the  broad  brush  of  the 
aged  Hals.  He  died  before  his  hand  began  to  fail 
or  there  was  any  decline  in  his  sureness  of  touch. 
His  later  work  was,  of  course,  looser  and  freer  than 
his  earlier  work,  but  it  was  not  less  sure  and  true 
in  its  larger  drawing.     Metamorphoses  Series. 

1668.   The  Milky  Way,    It  is  possibly  the  most  satis- 

*  factory  of  the  Metamorphoses  Series  and  alto- 
gether one  of  the  best  workshop  Rubenses  in  the 
gallery  so  far  as  its  surface  condition  is  concerned. 
The  most  superficial  observer  must  see  a  brilliancy 
and  clarity  of  flesh-notes  here  not  perceptible  in 
the  other  large  works  near  at  hand.  It  is  a  little 
careless  in  its  doing,  having  been  worked  upon  by 
assistants,  but  it  is  properly  drawn,  full  of  anima- 
tion, and  decorative  in  colour.  The  infant  is  un- 
satisfactory, and  the  chariot  is  a  little  tawdry  in 
effect,  even  theatrical,  but  there  are  spirit,  life,  and 
colour  about  it.     Metamorphoses  Series. 

1669.    Judgment  of  Paris.    The  figures  here,  as  in 

other  pictures  by  Rubens  in  the  Prado,  were  prob- 
ably designed  by  Rubens,  painted  by  pupils  or  as- 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  49 

sistants,  and  afterward  gone  over  by  the  master 
here  and  there.  One  misses  in  it  the  brilliancy 
of  his  flesh-notes  and  occasionally  wonders  over  the 
drawing  of  his  assistants — the  left  arm  of  Paris,  for 
instance,  or  the  hands  of  the  Graces.  The  land- 
scape is  all  shop  work.     Injured  and  much  restored. 

The   Three  Graces.    Three  effectively  drawn 

figures,  proceeding  originally  from  Rubens's  hand, 
but  not  now  revealing  much  of  that  hand  or  the 
painter's  flesh  colour.  The  flesh  is  too  pallid  and 
has  some  of  the  chalkiness  of  the  cleaning  room 
in  it,  with  spots  of  repainting  here  and  there. 
But  the  figures  are  gracefully  done,  stand  well, 
hold  together  well.  The  arabesque  about  them  and 
the  landscape  were  probably  added  by  assistants. 
Thought  by  some  critics  to  be  a  Rubens  master- 
piece, but  there  are  better.  Sent  to  Spain  after 
the  painter's  death. 

Diana  and  Calisto.    A  school  piece  all  through 

with  some  bad  drawing  and  very  indifferent  paint- 
ing about  it.  Notice  the  hips,  arms,  neck,  head, 
right  leg  and  foot  of  the  figure  showing  her  back,  in 
the  centre  of  the  picture.  Notice  the  cheap  paint- 
ing of  the  urn  in  the  centre,  the  still-life  at  the 
right,  the  fountain  with  the  spouting  head  at  the 
back,  or  the  tree  with  its  trunk,  branches,  and  fo- 
liage. The  small  vista  of  landscape  is  very  good. 
Sent  to  Spain  after  the  painter's  death. 

Ceres  and  Pan,     If  this  figure  of  Ceres  was 

painted  by  Rubens,  how  shall  we  reconcile  it  with 
the  figures  in  the  Judgment  of  Paris  (No.  1669) 
hanging  opposite?  Notice  the  difference  in  the 
flesh,  the  robes,  the  doing  of  the  hair.  Did  Rubens 
do  either  of  them?    The  difference  between  the 


50  THE  PRADO 

pictures  is  not  explainable  on  the  theory  of  the 
painter  having  different  styles  at  different  periods. 
The  variation  is  too  great.  It  means  the  work  of 
different  hands.  The  Ceres  is  merely  by  a  different 
assistant  from  the  one  who  produced  the  Graces — 
that  is  all.  The  landscape  is,  of  course,  attributed 
to  Wildens. 

1673.   Mercury  and  Argus.    The  Rubens  sketch  for 

this  is  in  the  collection  of  the  Duke  of  Osuna, 
and  that  is  about  as  far  as  Rubens  went  with  the 
picture.  The  execution  is  assistants'  work.  .The 
Argus  smacks  of  Van  Dyck,  though  one  knows 
scarcely  how  or  why.  It  was  repeated  probably 
from  the  Rubens  at  Dresden  (No.  962c).  Almost 
any  one  could  have  done  the  animal  at  the  left  and 
not  drawn  it  any  worse.  It  looks  like  Quellen's 
work.     Metamorphoses  Series. 

1674.   Fortune,     A  graceful  figure  corresponding  in  a 

general  way  to  the  Ganymede  (No.  1679),  both  of 
them  decorative  panels  and  little  more.  The  For- 
tune has  good  movement  about  it — good  lines.  The 
surface  is  greyed  by  scumblings  of  paint  and  the 
colour  lacks  in  purity  and  clarity.  It  has  been 
clumsily  handled  in  the  drapery  and  background. 
Rubens  designed  it  and  some  one  of  Quellen's  cali- 
bre painted  it.  The  sketch  for  it  is  in  the  Berlin 
Gallery  (No.  798c).     Metamorphoses  Series. 

1677.  Mercury,  A  somewhat  academic  figure,  stand- 
ing easily  and  wearing  the  symbols  of  Jove's  mes- 
senger, but  not  remarkable  in  any  way.  Meta- 
morphoses Series. 

1678.   Saturn.    A  repulsive  subject  but  no  one  but 

*       Rubens  could  have  so  conjured  it  up  in  imagination 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  61 

or  so  placed  the  design  upon  canvas.  It  is  a  rather 
fine  piece  of  drawing  with  some  of  the  painting 
evidently  by  Rubens  himself.  Look,  for  example, 
at  the  freedom  and  effectiveness  with  which  the 
hair  is  brushed  in  and  compare  it  with  the  thumbed 
and  matted-with-paint  hair  of  almost  any  other 
Rubens  in  the  gallery.  The  child  is  repainted  in 
spots.     Metamorphoses  Series. 

1679.  Ganymede,  A  graceful  figure  beautifully  de- 
signed by  Rubens  but  with  a  poorly  painted  sur- 
face by  some  one  of  his  assistants.  The  hand- 
writing of  the  master  brushman  is  not  here.  Met- 
amorphoses Series. 

1685.    Portrait  of  Marie  de  Medicis.     A  portrait  that 

*  has  been  hurt  by  scrubbing  but  not  by  repainting. 
The  flesh  is  chalk  white  and  the  background  was 
never  finished.  The  result  is  the  two  are  now  out 
of  tone.  Originally,  no  doubt,  a  fine  start  at  a 
portrait.  It  still  has  fine  qualities  about  it.  At 
least  it  is  Rubens  we  see  here  and  not  his  shopmen. 
What  superb  grace  and  charm  in  the  poise  of  the 
head  and  the  placing  of  the  hands!  And  what 
masterful  drawing!  How  the  master  rises  above 
his  men  even  though  the  work  be  incomplete  and 
in  bad  condition!  Carry  this  surface  into  the  long 
gallery  and  compare  it  with  the  surfaces  in  the 
Metamorphoses  Series.  It  is  a  very  different  story 
told  here. 

1687.    Portrait  of  the  Infante  Ferdinand.     An  official 

portrait,  no  doubt,  but  with  some  good  work  about 
it.  The  battle  of  Nordlingen  is  going  on  in  the 
background,  but  the  commander  has  time  to  look 
away  and  pose  for  his  portrait.  Such  pictures  shed 
no  new  light  on  the  genius  of  Rubens  or  the  realm 


* 


62  THE  PRADO 

of  art.  They  are  merely  commercial  ventures — 
things  to  keep  the  pot  boiling. 

1688.    Sir  Thomas  More.     A  very  good  portrait  with 

a  pale  but  distinct  resemblance  to  the  work  of 
Holbein.  It  is  said  to  be  a  copy  by  Rubens  after 
Holbein,  and  it  looks  like  an  enlarged  Holbein 
painted  by  some  masterful  Flemish  brush.  It  does 
not  exactly  speak  for  Rubens,  but  then  Rubens 
probably  moderated  his  brush  utterances  to  suit 
the  smooth  surface  of  the  Holbein.  It  is  a  good 
picture,  nevertheless,  with  rather  fine  colour.  The 
personality  of  the  sitter  is  attractive. 

1689.    Portrait  of  a  French  Princess.     It  is  a  variation 

of  the  so-called  Elizabeth  of  France  in  the  Louvre 
(No.  2112)  and  in  reality  a  portrait  of  Anne  of 
Austria.  It  is  attenuated,  rather  frail,  and  not 
very  suggestive  of  Rubens  as  its  painter.  Another 
version  in  the  Morgan  Collection,  New  York. 

1690.   The  Garden  of  Love.     There  are  other  and 

smaller  versions  of  this  picture  at  Vienna  and 
Dresden,  put  down  as  copies,  and  this  Madrid  pic- 
ture is  claimed  as  the  original.  Perhaps  the  claim 
is  just,  but  there  are  discrepancies  and  contradic- 
tions here  that  cannot  be  explained.  It  does  not 
entirely  agree  with  Rubens  as  one  sees  him  in  the 
galleries  of  Paris,  Antwerp,  Brussels,  Berlin,  Mu- 
nich, Vienna.  There  is  a  lack  of  certainty  in  the 
drawing  as  in  the  touch  of  the  brush.  Look,  for 
instance,  at  the  hair,  the  harsh  high  lights  on  the 
jaws,  shoulders,  throats,  the  drawing  of  the  musi- 
cian in  the  centre,  the  square,  flat  laps  of  the  women, 
the  architecture  at  the  back,  the  doves  at  the  left, 
the  peacock  at  the  right.  Rubens  seems  to  have 
imparted  some  brilliancy  to  the  central  figures  by 


* 


RUBENS,  PETER  PAUL  53 

touching  them  here  and  there.  For  the  rest  of  the 
picture,  it  is  none  too  good  for  workshop  manufac- 
ture. A  great  many  of  these  Madrid  Rubenses 
belong  to  that  class.  They  are  summarily  done, 
as  though  for  some  distant  barbarian  king  who 
would  not  know  the  diif erence  between  the  master's 
hand  and  that  of  his  pupils.  This  picture  was  prob- 
ably executed  after  Rubens 's  design  by  the  same 
hand  that  painted  the  Holy  Family  in  the  National 
Gallery,  London  (No.  67). 

-A  Dance  of  Peasants,     There  is  a  very  good 


swing  to  the  circle  of  figures  and  good  colour  to 
the  picture.  It  is  possibly  by  Rubenses  own  hand 
though  there  may  be  some  doubts  about  it.  The 
drawing  is  fairly  good  and  the  landscape  is  accept- 
able though  not  startling.  The  same  theme  differ- 
ently treated,  and  by  the  same  hand,  is  seen  in  the 
Kermess  in  the  Louvre  (No.  2115).  They  are  both 
good  works,  but  did  Rubens  do  them?  See  the 
note  on  the  Louvre  picture. 

-Adam  and  Eve.     This  is  a  copy  by  Rubens  of 


the  Titian  (No.  429)  in  this  gallery,  with  some  varia- 
tions, notably  the  introduction  of  the  red  note  in 
the  parrot.  The  Adam  seems  distinctly  improved 
in  the  copy,  but  the  Eve  is  less  attractive,  less  grace- 
ful, less  Italian  and  more  Flemish.  Those  who 
prefer  Italian  to  Flemish  art  will  probably  think 
the  Titian  the  better  picture.  The  latter  is  near 
at  hand  and  may  be  compared. 

-Rape  of  Europa,     A  copy,  supposed  to  be  by 


Rubens,  of  the  Titian  belonging  to  Mrs.  Gardner 
at  Boston.  It  shows  neither  painter  to  advantage 
and  is  now  merely  curious. 


64  THE  PRADO 

332.  SartO,   Andrea    del.      Portrait  of  Lucrezia  Fede. 

*  The  sitter  is  doubtless  Andrea's  wife,  and  done  by 
him,  but  whether  as  a  portrait  or  part  of  another 
picture  no  one  knows.  It  has  been  pieced  out  on 
the  four  sides  of  it.  A  handsome  picture  of  a 
Florentine  beauty,  good  in  colour  as  in  light-and- 
shade. 

333.   Madonna  and  Child,    It  is  badly  placed  in  the 

gallery  (1912)  and  probably  much  injured,  which 
may  account  for  its  placing.  It  is  blackish  in  the 
shadows  and  perhaps  Andrea  had  nothing  to  do 
with  it. 

334.    Holy  Family  with  Angel.    It  was  undoubtedly 

inspired  by  Andrea  and  is  an  imposing  pyramidal 
composition  but  is  not  inherently  strong.  It  has 
probably  suffered  much  in  its  surface.  The  sky 
and  background  look  scumbled  with  grey  paint. 
The  colour  is  agreeable  but  is  wanting  in  clarity, 
resonance,  strength.  It  is  not  Andrea  at  his  best 
— not  as  we  see  him  in  the  galleries  at  Florence. 

335.   Holy  Family,    The  picture  cannot  be  seen  to 

advantage  because  of  its  placing  on  the  wall.  It 
seems  injured,  is  heavy  in  spirit  and  poor  in  execu- 
tion.    The  attribution  may  be  questioned. 

336.   Sacrifice  of  Abraham,    It  is  a  version  of  the 

Andrea  in  the  Dresden  Gallery  (No.  77)  and  has 
the  appearance  of  a  freely  done  first  sketch  by 
Andrea  himself.  The  Abraham  is  colossal;  the 
Isaac  is  twisted  in  the  shoulders,  as  he  should  be, 
and  has  beautifully  drawn  legs  and  a  fine  torso. 
The  landscape  is  dark  and  there  is  a  good  tree  at 
the  left.     Notice  the  freely  done  garments  of  Isaac. 

337.    Madonna   and   Child,     The   drawing   of   the 

Child's  legs  and  of  the  Madonna's  hands  is  too 


♦ 


TIEPOLO,  DOMENICO  55 

bad  for  Andrea.  The  colour,  too,  is  frail  and  want- 
ing in  quality.  The  type  is  that  of  Lucrezia  Fede 
(Andrea's  wife),  but  the  picture,  in  spite  of  that,  is 
probably  a  study  or  an  old  copy  by  some  pupil. 
The  right  hand  is  again  Andrea's,  but  sadly  exag- 
gerated in  its  bad  drawing  by  the  pupil.  Cleaned 
and  rubbed. 

338.   Madonna  and  Child.    This  is  another  version 

of  No.  333,  though  it  has  the  smoothness  suggestive 
of  a  copy.  It  is  something  of  a  puzzle  to  know 
just  what  was  Andrea's  part  in  such  work  as  this. 
There  are  many  canvases  of  similar  quality  put 
down  to  him  in  the  European  galleries. 

1298.  Spanish  School  (15th  Century).  Descent  from 
Cross.  There  is  small  doubt  of  its  being  a  copy 
after  Roger  van  der  Weyden.  It  is  interesting  for 
what  it  tells  us  about  Roger  but  not  otherwise. 

1796.    Teniers   the   Younger,   David.      The  Smokers. 

There  is  a  roomful  of  pictures  here  by  Teniers  the 
Younger  through  which  the  student  may  stroll 
at  leisure.  Perhaps  No.  1796  is  as  good  as  any, 
but  none  of  them  is  remarkable  save  for  good 
technique — clever  handling.  One  seldom  hears  of 
the  authenticity  of  a  Teniers  being  doubted;  but 
had  he  no  clever  pupils?  Did  he  do  everything 
assigned  to  him? 
356.  Tiepolo,  Domenico.  Christ  at  the  Column. 
This  and  half  a  dozen  companion  pieces  here  were 
painted  for  the  Convent  of  St.  Philip  Neri  by 
Domenico,  the  son  of  Giovanni  Battista  Tiepolo. 
It  is  worth  while  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that 
there  was  a  son  since  the  father  is  usually  credited 
with  the  son's  work,  as  well  as  all  the  work  of  the 
Tiepolo  shop. 


56  '  THE  PRADO 

363.  Tiepolo,  Giovanni  Battista.  The  Immaculate 
*  Conception.  Painted  for  the  church  of  the  Con- 
vent of  San  Pascual  of  Aranguez.  A  slight  enough 
conception  but  serious,  cleverly  painted,  good  in 
colour,  and  highly  decorative.  It  is,  perhaps,  by 
the  son,  Domenico,  rather  than  the  father.  Some- 
what injured  at  the  top  and  with  square  patches 
added  at  the  corners. 

364.   The  Eucharist.    This  is  even  less  surely  by 

Giovanni  Tiepolo  than  No.  363.  It  is  a  bit  sweet 
for  the  Elder  and  more  like  the  Younger  Tiepolo. 
Injured. 

393.  Tintoretto,  Jacopo  (Robusti).  Purification  of 
the  Midianite  Virgins.  Graceful  figures  in  bright, 
raw-hued  garments  in  a  crude  landscape.  Prob- 
ably by  some  follower  of  Tintoretto.  Said  to  have 
been  bought  by  Velasquez  for  Philip  IV  on  his 
second  Italian  journey,  but  probably  Velasquez  did 
not  think  it  a  Tintoretto.  He  bought  it,  doubtless, 
because  it  was  a  graceful,  decorative  canvas  and 
cared  little  about  who  painted  it. 

390.    The  Beheading  of  Holof ernes.     It  belongs  to 

the  school  work  of  Tintoretto  and  is  not  an  im- 
portant canvas  in  any  way.  The  colour  is  flashy 
and  spotty  and  the  light  false. 

398.  Paradise.  This  is  said  to  be  another  Velas- 
quez purchase  for  Philip  IV  in  Venice  which  shows 
that  Velasquez  either  did  not  know  his  Tintoretto 
very  well  or  (what  is  more  likely)  could  find  noth- 
ing better  to  purchase.  It  is  a  variation  of  the 
Paradise  at  Venice  by  a  weaker  brush  than  Tin- 
toretto's. 

397.   Baptism  of  Christ.    A  picture  doubtless  of 

Tintoretto's  inspiration,  and  not  a  very  good  pic- 


* 


TITIAN  (TIZIANO  VECELLIO)  57 

ture  at  that,  but  probably  not  by  the  master's  own 
hand.  The  figures  are  graceful  and  the  landscape 
attractive  but  Tintoretto's  strength  is  lacking. 
Originally  rounded  at  the  top. 

399.    Battle  by  Land  and  Sea,     This  is  a  jumble  of 

figures,  horses,  masts,  sails,  gondolas,  sea,  moun- 
tains. It  lacks  space,  air,  coherence  though  it  has 
some  good  light  and  colour.  It  is  probably  some 
sort  of  Tintoretto  school  piece  in  which  the  master 
had  a  finishing  hand,  but  it  is  not  a  notable  per- 
formance. The  best  Tintorettos  in  Spain  are  still 
at  the  Escorial. 

386.   Susanna.    This  picture  and  Nos.  388, 389,  394, 

395,  and  396  are  sketches  by  Tintoretto  for  larger 
pictures  and  are  delightful  in  every  way.  The 
student  can  compare  them  with  the  alleged  Tin- 
torettos hanging  below  them  and  see  for  himself 
the  difference  in  the  colouring,  drawing,  and  han- 
dling. The  Susanna  and  the  Chastity  of  Joseph 
show  splendid  nudes;  and  what  lovely  pieces  of 
colour  are  the  Esther  and  the  Queen  of  Sheba  pic- 
tures! After  their  kind  these  sketchy  little  pictures 
show  Tintoretto  to  supreme  advantage.  He  did 
many  things  more  forceful,  more  imposing  in  style 
and  size,  but  few  more  attractive  things  as  form 
and  colour. 

379.    Portrait  of  a   Venetian  Senator.     Of  the  half 

dozen  supposed  Tintoretto  portraits  in  this  room 
there  is  not  one  that  a  person  can  rave  over.  Nos. 
377  and  379  are  as  good  as  any  without  being  in 
any  way  remarkable.  They  are  all  doubtful  in 
their  attribution  to  Tintoretto. 

407.  Titian  (Tiziano  Vecellio).  Portrait  of  Himself. 
*      This  is  Titian's  latest  way  of  seeing  and  doing 


68  THE  PRADO 

when  everything  had  become  simplified  to  him, 
and  he  was  even  able  to  see  himself  in  a  large, 
comprehensive  way  unencumbered  by  detail.  It 
is  remarkable  in  this  portrait  what  little  emphasis 
is  put  upon  any  particular  part.  It  is  not  composed 
or  forced  or  exaggerated  in  any  way.  It  is  a  plain 
statement  of  the  large  truths  of  the  physical  pres- 
ence. It  has  some  nobility  of  mien,  some  character- 
isation of  the  old  man  in  the  painter,  a  little  colour, 
less  sharp  light,  and  a  great  half-tone  in  which  the 
head  and  bust  are  submerged.  It  is  distinctly 
fine.  Of  course  it  has  hardly  the  energy  of  his 
earlier  portrait  at  Berlin  but  in  other  ways  it 
seems  larger,  nobler,  more  universally  true. 

408.    Portrait  of  Alphonso  I,  Duke  of  Ferrara,     The 

figure  is  rather  badly  disposed  on  the  canvas.  The 
top  of  the  head  now  touches  the  picture-frame  and 
the  bottom  of  the  canvas  is  over-filled  by  the  spread- 
ing costume  and  the  presence  of  the  disturbing 
dog.  The  colour  scheme  is  not  pleasant  and,  to  add 
to  this  feeling,  the  picture  has  suffered  much  from 
repainting.  The  face  is  now  soft,  weak  in  modelling, 
and  the  right  hand  is  almost  ruined.  Originally  it 
was  probably  an  official  court  portrait  done  for 
the  admiration  of  the  Duke's  posterity  rather  than 
for  art's  sake. 

409.    Emperor  Charles   V  with  Dog,     A  full-length 

of  the  Emperor  with  the  figure  standing  easily, 
though  showing  a  little  thin  in  the  white-stockinged 
legs.  It  is  probably  the  most  exact  portrait  of  the 
man  that  we  have  and  yet  contains  much  of  the 
Emperor  and  the  master.  It  is  a  strong,  serious 
face,  pallid  in  the  flesh,  protrusive  in  the  lower  jaw, 
with  nose  and  brows  a  little  hard.     The  imperial 


«♦ 


TITIAN  (TIZIANO  VECELLIO)  59 

costume,  of  course,  lends  itself  to  portraiture,  and 
Titian  made  the  most  of  it.  The  portrait  is  quite 
perfect  in  its  quiet,  simple  statement  of  fact.  The 
background  has  a  handsome  dark-green  curtain  at 
the  left.  The  dog  is  rather  wooden  and  is  no  match 
for  the  dogs  of  Velasquez.  All  told  it  is  an  excel- 
lent portrait — one  of  the  noblest  "portraits  of 
parade*'  known  to  art.  As  an  official  performance 
Titian  never  bettered  it  except,  perhaps,  in  the  por- 
trait of  the  Emperor  at  Miihlberg  (No.  410). 

410.   Charles  V  at  Miihlberg.    This  IS  the  famous 

***  equestrian  portrait  of  Charles  V,  and  a  fine  work  it 
is  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  it  has  been  much  restored 
and  repainted.  The  spirit  of  it  is  capital  and  the 
simplicity  of  it  little  short  of  astonishing.  Titian 
never  proved  his  title  to  being  the  world's  great 
painter  better  than  in  this  superb  portrait.  What  a 
monarch  he  here  shows  us  I  How  resolute  the  face 
and  attitude!  How  well  he  rides!  How  firmly  he 
sits  in  the  saddle!  Titian  put  a  great  deal  of  push 
and  drive  in  the  horse  and  figure  by  making  the 
horse  rear  a  little  and  supporting  that  attitude  by 
the  long,  diagonal  lance.  That  gave  motion  while 
the  upright  line  of  the  Emperor's  figure  gave  dig- 
nity even  in  rapid  action.  The  Emperor  is  alone, 
with  no  disturbing  attendants  or  accessory  objects 
or  soldiers  in  the  distance — alone  in  a  superb,  far- 
reaching  landscape  than  which  nothing  could  be 
more  appropriate  or  better  for  the  importance  of  the 
man  and  horse.  The  colour  is  presumably  an  at- 
tempt to  match  the  original  palette  of  Titian,  and 
also  the  painting  of  the  armour  and  trappings  have 
something  of  Titian  still  in  them,  though  the  whole 
picture  has  been  gone  over  by  alien  hands.     It  was 


60  THE  PRADO 

much  injured  in  the  fire  of  1734  and  required  re- 
painting. 

411.    Portrait  of  Philip  IL     A  full-length  portrait 

**      in  armour  standing  in  front  of  a  table  covered  with 

a  red  cloth.  The  table  is  beautifully  drawn,  and 
the  cloth  is  really  exquisite  in  hue  as  in  texture,  but 
as  a  background  it  seems  to  push  the  figure  too  far 
forward — crowds  it  into  the  footlights,  as  it  were. 
It  is  a  noble  portrait,  nevertheless.  The  king  is  a 
rather  odd-looking  person,  proud,  haughty,  thor- 
oughly imbued  with  the  imperial  tradition,  and  no 
doubt  disagreeable  to  meet  in  the  life,  but  a  per- 
sonality for  all  that.  The  face  is  pale,  the  eyes 
dull,  the  lower  jaw  protrusive.  There  is,  perhaps, 
too  much  magnificence  in  the  armour,  but  Titian 
has  tried  to  keep  it  in  abeyance  to  the  man.  Also 
the  white  stockings  and  shoes  are  a  little  "jumpy," 
being  (now)  higher  in  value  than  the  face  and  hands. 
A  noble  portrait  though  not,  of  course,  so  perfect 
a  performance  as  the  Paul  III  at  Naples.  Over- 
cleaned  like  the  other  Titian  portraits  here.  There 
are  other  versions  of  it  at  Naples  and  elsewhere. 

412.    Portrait  of  a  Knight  of  Malta,     It  is  in  too 

bad  condition  to  hang  on  the  line  or  to  talk  about, 
or  even  to  look  at.  With  so  many  good  Titians 
here  to  choose  from,  this  one  can  be  passed  in 
silence. 

413.  Portrait  of  a  Man,  There  is  some  good  draw- 
ing in  the  eyes  and  forehead.  The  nose  is,  perhaps, 
a  little  sharp  in  outline.  It  is  rather  a  strong  head 
and  shows  a  forceful  character.  The  white  fur 
may  be  a  bit  obtrusive.  As  for  colour,  aside  from 
the  flesh  it  is  little  more  than  a  study  in  black  and 
white. 


TITIAN  (TIZIANO  VECELLIO)  61 

414.    Portrait  of  a  Man.     It  may  be  genuine  enough 

but  is  not  interesting  in  the  subject  or  its  treatment. 

415.    Portrait    of    the    Empress    Isabella.     A    very 

*      dignified  portrait,  full  of  seriousness  and  nobility 

for  all  the  youth  of  the  sitter.  Originally  it  must 
have  been  done  in  Titian's  most  elaborate  ofiicial 
style  but  is  now  much  injured  by  repainting.  The 
colour  scheme  is  still  delightful  in  dull  reds  and 
maroons.  The  dress  is  elaborate  in  pearis  and  em- 
broidery, but  these  are  kept  down  in  light  so  that 
they  do  not  seem  to  detract  from  the  figure.  The 
head  is  harmed  by  being  placed  against  a  now  raw, 
repainted  ground,  and  the  left  hand  and  arm  were, 
perhaps,  always  questionable.  The  face  is  pallid, 
the  eyes  a  little  askew,  the  hands  very  patrician, 
the  landscape  excellent.  The  portrait  was  not 
painted  from  life  but  from  another  picture,  which 
may  account  for  some  of  the  elaborateness  of  the 
dress  and  the  unreality  of  the  pose. 

417.    Tfie  Marquis  of  Vasto  Addressing  His  Soldiers. 

A  genuine  Titian  but  not  an  interesting  one.  It 
is  a  little  perfunctory,  something  of  an  oflScial  re- 
port, perhaps.  The  crowd  of  soldiers  at  the  back 
is  well  given,  but  the  figures  in  the  foreground  do 
not  join  on  very  well  to  those  in  the  background. 
The  composition  is  awkward,  with  the  hands  and 
halberds  cutting  across  the  upper  space,  and  the 
soldier  in  front  in  maroon-coloured  coat  and  mail 
seems  more  important  than  the  Marquis.  But 
Titian  is  not  now  wholly  responsible  for  the  look 
of  the  picture.  It  has  been  wrecked  by  fire  and 
repainting. 

418.   The  Bacchanal.     An  early  Titian,  probably 

**     belonging  to  the  time  of  the  Ariadne  and  Bacchus 


62  THE  PRADO 

in  the  National  Gallery,  London.  It  has  been 
cleaned  too  much  and  is  now  airless,  with  a  crude 
sky  and  clouds  against  which  the  trees  cut  sharply. 
The  figures,  too,  have  suffered  somewhat  but  are 
still  fine,  especially  the  famous  sleeping  nude  in 
the  right-hand  corner,  now  a  little  precise  in  out- 
line. The  two  dancing  figures  at  the  right,  the 
reclining  woman  in  the  centre,  the  brown-skinned 
figures  about  them  acting  as  a  foil  to  their  light 
flesh-notes  all  have  what  is  supposed  to  be  a  Gior- 
gionesque  quality  about  them.  The  grouping  is 
excellent  in  its  animation,  its  infinite  variety,  and, 
above  all,  in  its  wonderful  unity.  The  whole  throng 
is  beautifully  knit  together  and  yet  not  constrained. 
The  movement  is  as  full  of  abandon  as  the  spirit 
is  of  riotous  joy.  The  colour  is  raw  in  spots  where 
there  has  been  too  much  cleaning  and  repainting, 
and  it  is  now  a  little  cool  in  the  blues  of  the  sea  and 
sky;  but,  in  spite  of  all,  what  marvellous  colour  it 
still  shows  us  I  A  ship  with  set  sails  is  seen  at  the 
back,  and  a  river  of  wine  was  once  apparent  in  the 
foreground  but  is  now  blurred  by  patching  and 
cleaning.  A  companion  piece  to  No.  419  though 
perhaps  now  a  less  beautiful  work  because  of  its 
bad  condition. 
419.  The  Worship  of  Venus.  A  more  pleasing  pic- 
ture than  the  Bacchanal  (No.  418).  It  was  a 
quaint  conceit  of  Titian's  to  place  that  concourse 
of  cupids  in  that  beautiful  landscape.  Evidently 
the  theme  pleased  him,  for  he  spent  much  time 
varying  the  attitudes,  movements,  and  types  of 
the  cupids.  How  various  they  are!  It  is  worth  a 
study  for  this  great  variety  quite  independent  of 
other  beauties  in  the  picture.  How  wonderfully 
he  has  drawn  and  painted  each  one  of  the  little 


*** 


TITIAN  (TIZIANO  VECELLIO)  63 

nude  figures!  What  a  group  he  has  made  of  them! 
And  what  beautiful  colour  as  well  as  line  they  re- 
veal! Nothing  could  be  more  charming  or  more 
lovely.  The  two  figures  of  women  at  the  right 
support  the  statue  of  Venus  but  otherwise  are 
hardly  necessary  in  the  picture  except  as  they  lend 
notes  of  colour.  What  triumphant  colour  in  the 
foreground,  wrung  from  the  fruit,  the  scattered 
cloths,  the  grass  and  flowers,  the  blue-winged 
cupids!  This  colour  is  repeated  at  the  top  of  the 
canvas  in  the  flying  cupids,  the  green  foliage,  and 
the  blue  sky  seen  through  the  trees.  Finally,  what 
a  superb  landscape!  It  is  not  airless  as  in  No.  418, 
nor  with  crude  sky  and  sharply  outlined  trees,  but 
broader,  freer,  fuller  of  colour,  more  atmospheric, 
more  beautiful  in  light.  The  picture  is  a  magnifi- 
cent Titian.  It  has  been  cleaned  some  and  re- 
painted in  the  head,  neck,  and  arm  of  the  woman 
with  the  mirror,  in  the  statue,  in  the  sky  in  spots 
here  and  there,  but  is  still  a  wonderful  work.  Else- 
where regret  has  been  expressed  that  Titian  ever 
gave  time  to  other  work  than  portraiture;  but  here 
we  recant.  Such  work  as  this  could  never  be 
spared.     It  is  too  exquisite,  too  wonderful. 

Reclining  Venus.     This   is   a  repetition  of  a 

theme  familiar  to  Titian,  he  having  put  forth  at 
least  one  other  version  now  in  the  Uffizi  at  Florence. 
The  type  of  the  Venus,  both  here  and  there,  is 
animal-like,  decidedly  earthy,  but  rather  impres- 
sive in  pure  physical  beauty.  The  underline  of  this 
Madrid  Venus  has  something  of  a  sweep  and  re- 
veals something  of  bulk  and  weight,  but  is  lack- 
ing in  the  charming  variety  of  the  nude  figure  in 
the  Sacred  and  Profane  Love  in  the  Borghese  Gal- 
lery, Rome.     The  figure  is  fleshy,  heavy,  lumpy. 


64  THE  PRADO 

The  upper  part  of  it  is  quite  right,  but  the  head  is 
out  of  value.  The  velvet  drapery  under  the  figure 
is  rather  pronounced  in  its  high  lights;  the  curtain 
at  the  top  is  better.  The  landscape  is  very  good. 
Injured  by  the  fire  of  1734  in  common  with  so  many 
of  the  Prado  pictures,  and  much  restored,  but  it 
was  never  a  Titian  masterpiece. 

421.   Venus  and  Cupid.    It  is  some  sort  of  a  school 

copy  of  No.  420  with  variations  taken  from  the 
Titian  Venus  of  the  UflSzi  and  elsewhere.  Dis- 
tinctly of  an  inferior  quality  to  No.  420,  the  note 
of  red  in  the  curtain  being  out  of  key  and  the  darker 
velvet  under  the  figure  less  harmonious.  Notice 
also  that  the  landscape  is  more  rudimentary. 
Much  injured  by  fire  and  restoration. 

422.   Venus  and  Adonis.    This  is  another  version 

of  a  familiar  picture  in  the  National  Gallery,  Lon- 
don. Apparently  it  is  not  by  Titian's  hand  but  is 
possibly  by  some  one  in  his  workshop.  The  work 
is  crude  in  the  dogs,  the  sky,  the  distant  cupid  under 
the  tree,  the  trees  themselves.  The  figures  are 
as  wanting  in  Titianesque  quality  as  those  in  the 
London  picture,  yet  this  is  supposed  to  be  the 
original  of  the  London  picture.  Neither  of  them 
is  by  Titian.  The  back  of  the  Venus  here  is  much 
discoloured  as  though  repainted.  The  whole  pic- 
ture is  suggestive  of  the  restorer's  art. 

425.    Danae.     At  one  time,  no  doubt,  this  was  a 

wonderful  nude,  comparable,  perhaps,  to  Gior- 
gione's  Venus  at  Dresden,  but  it  has  been  dam- 
aged considerably  by  cleaning  and  repainting.  The 
splendid  figure  remains,  but  the  marks  of  the  re- 
storer spot  it  here  and  there.  The  right  breast  has 
been  destroyed,  the  torso  is  marred  in  the  model- 


** 


TITIAN  (TIZIANO  VECELLIO)  65 

ling  and  discoloured,  the  right  leg  above  the  knee  is 
now  sharp  in  outline,  the  left  leg  is  false  in  value, 
the  right  arm  is  heavy,  the  left  arm  feeble.  And 
what  are  we  to  think  of  such  things  as  the  want  of 
drawing  in  the  cushions,  the  ropiness  or  painty 
quality  of  the  linen  under  the  figure?  These  are 
things  that  Titian  could  hardly  have  done  deliber- 
ately, though  he  may  have  done  them  through 
carelessness.  This  is  a  late  picture,  and  Titian 
in  his  late  work  omitted  much,  handled  loosely, 
often  kneaded  and  fumbled  the  surface,  but  he  did 
not  usually  blotch  and  spot  and  omit  good  drawing. 
Besides,  the  careful  doing  of  the  curtain  at  the  left, 
and  of  the  old  woman  at  the  right  do  not  agree 
with  the  shortcomings  of  the  nude  figure.  The 
colour  is  still  superb,  and  of  course  the  picture  is 
a  notable  one.  It  has  the  tang  of  beauty  and  at 
one  time  must  have  been  a  glorious  affair.  In  con- 
ception it  is  neither  delicate  nor  refined,  but  as 
form  and  colour  it  is  still  something  of  a  marvel. 
There  are  many  versions  of  it  in  European  galleries, 
the  earliest,  perhaps,  and  the  best  preserved  at 
Naples.     This  version  was  done  for  Philip  II. 

Sisyphus.    It  is   a  companion   piece   to  the 

Prometheus  hanging  opposite  to  it  though  it  is  less 
volcanic  in  its  action  and  composition.  The  huge, 
straining  figure  is  well  drawn  but  the  picture  is 
not  good  in  colour  nor  otherwise  attractive.  The 
colour  is  hot  and  now  darkened,  probably  by  fire 
and  smoke.  Both  pictures  were  done  to  order  to 
fill  space.     They  are  late  works  and  much  injured. 

Prometheus,     The  figure  is   ponderous  and 

perhaps  agonised  too  much.  The  handling  is 
broad  but  coarse  and  the  flesh  colour  is  now  black- 


66  THE  PRADO 

ened.  Painted  to  order  with  three  other  pictures, 
one  of  them  the  Sisyphus  (No.  426)  and  all  of  them 
rather  perfunctory  in  their  doing. 

428.   Salome.    A  repetition  of  the  Titian's  Daughter 

*  picture  at  Berlin  (No.  166)  save  that  she  holds 
aloft  the  head  of  the  Baptist  on  a  charger  here  in- 
stead of  a  dish  of  fruit  there.  The  colour  scheme 
also  is  different.  This  is  the  more  brilliant  pic- 
ture of  the  two.  Seen  from  across  the  room,  it  is 
fine  in  pose  and  lovely  in  colour.  It  has  been  hurt 
by  cleaning  and  repainting  but  is  still  very  firm 
in  the  head,  hair,  neck,  and  shoulders,  in  the  white 
veiling  falling  from  the  neck,  the  rich  dress  with  its 
shadowed  depth  of  hue  and  effective  high  lights. 
Was  there  a  ribbon  or  jewelled  collar  about  the 
throat  at  one  time  which  is  now  painted  out  but 
leaves  a  mark  on  the  canvas?  The  hands  and  arms 
with  most  of  the  head  are  in  bad  condition. 

429.    The  Fall  of  Man.     Colossal  figures  of  Adam 

*  and  Eve,  the  latter  receiving  the  apple  from  the 
serpent  with  a  child's  head.  The  Eve  is  large  and 
fine,  the  Adam  more  academic  and  less  satisfactory. 
Both  figures  are  remarkable  for  the  broader  and 
more  universal  truths  of  the  human  figure,  whereas 
the  fig-tree  at  the  left,  the  peach-tree  at  the  right, 
the  hollyhocks  below  are  marked  by  peculiar  and 
special  truth  of  characterisation.  In  the  distance 
is  a  blue  mountain  landscape  suggestive  of  the 
Cadore  country  where  Titian  was  born.  Late  work 
and  damaged  by  fire  and  repainting.  See  the  Ru- 
bens copy  (No.  1692)  in  this  gallery. 

430.    Religion  Succoured  by  Spain.     The  figure  with 

the  spear  is  a  little  theatrical,  and  Religion  is  a  poor, 
spiritless  soul.     The  trappings  of  war  in  the  fore- 


TITIAN  (TIZIANO  VECELLIO)  67 

ground  are  better  done.  It  is  not  a  remarkable 
Titian  and  probably  he  did  little  upon  it  that  shows 
at  present. 

431.    Philip    11   Offering    His    Son    to    Heaven.      A 

somewhat  strained  allegory  (symbolising  the  victory 
of  Lepanto)  which  Titian  himself  could  not  have 
enjoyed  particularly.  The  angel  is  wrenched  out 
of  drawing  and  looks  as  though  thrown  out  of  a 
window  rather  than  descending  from  the  skies. 
The  litter  of  Turkish  plunder  in  the  foreground, 
with  a  fighting  fleet  at  the  back,  does  not  add  much 
to  the  composition.  It  is  doubtful  if  this  picture 
was  ever  more  than  a  workshop  affair  and  it  is  now 
almost  ruined  by  fire  and  repainting. 

432.    The  Holy  Trinity  {La  Gloria).     A  large  OVal  of 

*      figures  filling  an  upright  panel,  with  considerable 

movement  in  the  figures.  Charles  V,  Philip  II,  and 
their  wives  are  at  the  upper  right  while  Moses, 
Noah,  a  Sibyl,  and  the  (apparently)  lesser  immor- 
tals fill  in  the  foreground  lower  down.  The  con- 
ceptions of  the  Father  and  Son  are  not  startling. 
The  Madonna  in  blue,  looking  back,  is  better.  The 
Sibyl  is  the  best  of  all.  The  colour  is  cool  in  blues. 
There  is  a  fine  suggestion  of  landscape  at  the  bot- 
tom but  not  even  Titian  could  make  a  satisfac- 
tory picture  of  such  a  composition.  The  surface 
is  injured. 

434.    Holy  Family  with  St.  Bridget  and  St.  Ulfus. 

**  A  beautiful  picture  in  form  and  colour  and,  thanks 
to  its  being  painted  upon  wood,  in  fair  condition. 
The  types  are  very  lofty,  noble,  hardly  of  the  earth, 
so  elevated  are  they  and  so  winning.  St.  Bridget 
also  appears  in  the  Sacred  and  Profane  Love  of  the 
Borghese  Gallery  and  St.  Ulfus  has  not  outgrown 


58  THE  PRADO 

a  Bellinesque  look  and  feeling.  The  colour  is  clear, 
brilliant,  quite  beautiful.  The  handling  is  devoid 
of  much  emendation,  as,  notice  the  flowers,  and  yet 
is  not  so  positive  and  so  sure  as  in  the  Tribute 
Money  at  Dresden  (No.  169).  There  are  indica- 
tions, as  in  the  hair  of  the  Madonna,  that  an  alien 
hand  has  been  at  work  on  the  surface  and  left 
blotches  here  and  there,  but  otherwise  the  picture 
is  a  clean,  early  Titian.  Formerly  attributed  to 
Giorgione. 

435.   Flight  into  Egypt,     It  does  not  suggest  Titian, 

save  vaguely,  and  was  probably  done  by  some  in- 
ferior follower  of  the  master.  The  figure  and  robe 
of  Joseph,  the  Madonna,  the  hatchet-faced  St. 
John  with  the  ponderous  hand  and  shoulder,  the 
sheep,  the  donkey,  the  ducks,  the  landscape  all  show 
poor  workmanship. 

437.   Ecce  Homo.    It  is  a  rather  strong  half-figure 

but  it  may  be  questioned  if  Titian  did  it.  It  is 
nearer  to  Bassano  than  to  Titian.  The  hair  and 
beard  have  blackened  and  most  of  the  background 
has  "bubbled'*  as  though  injured  by  bitumen. 
Painted  on  stone. 

438.    Christ    Bearing     the     Cross,     The    figure    of 

Christ  is  slight  and  his  face  and  hand  are  feminine. 
The  cross  bearing  down  upon  the  figure  is  enormous. 
The  old  man's  head  is  the  better  of  the  two,  but 
Titian  probably  did  neither  of  them.  It  is  more 
Tike  pupil's  work  or  a  workshop  piece. 

439.  Christ  Bearing  the  Cross,  It  has  the  signa- 
tures of  Bellini  and  Titian  upon  it,  but  otherwise 
there  is  nothing  about  the  picture  to  indicate  that 
either  painter  had  aught  to  do  with  it. 


TITIAN  (TIZIANO  VECELLIO)  69 

The  Entombment.     In  its  subject  this  picture 

inevitably  brings  up  the  famous  Entombment  of 
the  Louvre,  with  the  result  that  this  Madrid  pic- 
ture suffers  somewhat  by  the  comparison.  It  is 
an  arched  composition  and  the  group  is  well  held 
together  and  strengthened  by  rounded,  repeated 
lines.  There  is  much  action  accumulated  about 
the  dead  figure,  some  limp  drag-down  to  the  body 
of  the  Saviour,  some  strain  about  the  bent  form  of 
the  disciple  in  red  which  in  its  back  line  leads  on 
to  the  left  arm  and  shoulders  of  the  Christ;  but 
there  is  also  some  huddling  of  the  figures,  some  want 
of  space,  some  crowding  of  the  Madonna,  for  in- 
stance. The  best  part  of  the  picture  is  the  nude 
figure  of  Christ  and  the  disciple  in  red.  Titian 
himself  was  probably  not  satisfied  with  it.  It  is 
not  so  freely  done  as  some  of  his  late  works  and 
was  probably  much  changed  and  emended,  for  the 
surface  is  flaky,  bready,  mealy,  and  the  drawing 
has  been  gone  over  more  than  once.  Yet  it  has 
fine  qualities  about  it.  Look  at  it  from  across  the 
gallery  and  get  the  largeness  of  the  figures  and  the 
unity  of  the  group.     Executed  in  1559. 

The  Saviour.    Evidently  a  part  of  a  picture 

and  not  very  good  at  that.  It  is  much  repainted 
in  the  now  crude  sky  and  in  the  figure.  The  face 
is  prettified  and  the  hand  is  ruined.  Apparently 
it  never  came  from  Titian's  brush;  at  least  there 
is  now  little  sign  of  Titian  about  it. 

The  Virgin  of  Sorrows.     This  will  hardly  pass 

for  a  Titian  though  a  good  enough  picture  in  itself. 
One  hardly  knows  where  to  place  it. 

The  Virgin  of  Sorrows.     It  is  possibly  by  some 

Titian  pupil  or  follower.    The  left  hand  is  awkward. 


7a  THE  PRADO 

the  nose  and  brows  hard  in  line,  the  blue  robe  sharp 
in  hue.  The  whole  face  has  been  scrubbed  and 
repainted,  also  the  hands.     On  stone. 

445.   St.  Margaret,     A  fine  Titian  as  regards  both 

**  the  figure  and  the  landscape  though,  unfortunately, 
both  have  darkened  by  time — so  much  so  that  the 
right  leg  of  the  saint  has  almost  disappeared  and 
the  sea  and  sky  have  become  blackish.  But  the 
figure  is  still  superb  in  bulk,  body,  and  action,  with 
a  well-turned  head  and  well-rounded  arms.  The 
colour  is  dark  again  but  wonderfully  harmonious. 
As  for  the  dragon,  he  is  only  to  be  guessed  at;  but 
the  sea  with  its  sombre  shadow  is  now  grandly 
mysterious  and  the  whole  landscape  is  a  wonder 
of  breadth  and  force.  The  upper  part  of  the  can- 
vas was,  perhaps,  added  after  Titian's  death.  A 
late  picture  and  an  excellent  one. 

448.   St.  Jerome.    The  catalogue  suggests  that  this 

picture  is  by  Lotto — a  suggestion  that  meets  with 
acceptance  in  many  quarters.  The  angel,  the  blue 
sky,  the  red  robe  are  distinctly  Lottesque.  But  it 
is  not  a  very  important  picture. 
1159.  Tristan,  Luis.  St.  Anthony.  Rather  hard  and 
brutal  but  with  some  strength  in  it — that  is,  so 
far  as  one  may  see.  The  picture  is  badly  hung. 
And  the  attribution  seems  more  than  half  doubtful, 
seen  from  a  distance. 
525  1  Umbrian  School.  Continence  of  Scipio  and  Rape 
524  J  of  the  Sabines.  These  are  decorative  panels,  prob- 
ably done  for  a  wedding-chest,  and  possibly  they 
came  from  some  Umbrian  workshop — the  catalogue 
suggests  Pinturicchio's,  and  Berenson  Aspertini's. 
They  are  rich  in  colour.  The  landscape  has  gilded 
high  lights. 


VELASQUEZ,  DIEGO  DE  SILVA  Y  71 

1858  1  Veen,  Otto  van  (Vaenius).      Saints  and  Donors, 

1859  j  Two  panels  from  an  altar-piece  that  show  the  style 

of  painting  started  by  Van  Veen  in  the  School  of 
Antwerp  and  brought  to  perfection  by  Rubens. 

1168.  Velasquez,  Diego  de  Silva  y.  Coronation  of  the 
*  Virgin,  The  face  of  the  Madonna  is  attractive, 
the  figure  dignified,  and  her  robe  well  done,  but  if 
we  had  nothing  of  Velasquez  but  this  rather  strained 
composition  to  judge  by  we  should  not  marvel 
over  his  skill  or  place  him  with  the  immortals.  It 
is  one  of  his  least  interesting  works.  There  are 
other  works  of  his  here  of  more  merit,  though  in 
itself  this  is  not  wanting  in  skill  or  beauty.  The 
figures  at  the  top  are  the  poorest  part  of  the  pic- 
ture. They  are  not  so  believable  as  the  Madonna. 
As  for  the  colour  scheme,  it  was,  perhaps,  some- 
thing of  an  experiment  but  not  a  wholly  unsuc- 
cessful one. 

1166.   Adoration  of  Kings.     In  the  early  style   of 

Velasquez,  done  when  he  was  about  twenty.  The 
Velasquez  of  fame  is  not  so  much  as  indicated  here. 
He  had  not  found  himself  at  this  time  and  was  evi- 
dently following  the  example  of  his  older  Spanish 
contemporaries  and  masters,  Herrera  and  Pacheco. 
The  drawing  is  hard  and  the  shadows  are  blackish, 
though  there  is  good  work  in  the  kneeling  figure  at 
the  left,  in  the  Madonna  holding  the  very  natural 
Child,  and  in  the  draperies.  A  painter  of  some 
power  is  already  apparent  but  not  the  painter  of 
Las  Meninas. 

1209.   Head  of  a  Man.     This  was  done,  no  doubt, 

with  great  exactness  and  fidelity  to  the  model  but 
is,  nevertheless,  sharp  in  line,  hard  in  modelling, 
and  leathery  in  textures.     It  has  a  look  of  II  Greco 


72  THE  PRADO 

mixed  with  Ribalta.  It  is  in  the  early  style  of 
Velasquez,  done  at  a  time  when  he  was  probably 
regarding  his  contemporaries  with  more  admiration 
than  later  on. 

1182.   ; Philip  IV.     This  is,  perhaps,  the  first  attempt 


* 


to  paint  Philip,  judging  from  the  king's  age.  It 
is  a  commanding  full-length,  of  much  power  and 
beauty,  in  which  Velasquez  shows  that  though 
young  he  already  has  an  independent  mind,  eye, 
and  hand.  The  picture  has  not  the  ease  of  draw- 
ing, the  loose  handling,  the  light,  air,  colour, 
ensemble  of  his  later  time,  but  there  are  profound 
knowledge  and  observation  in  it.  The  king 
stands  well  and  is  placed  well  on  the  canvas  but 
perhaps  comes  forward  a  little  too  much,  though 
the  room  seems  not  wanting  in  atmosphere.  The 
whole — the  figure  and  the  interior — is  seen  and 
handled  simply,  directly,  without  attempt  at  col- 
our splendour  or  great  decorative  effect.  The 
painter  was  to  do  the  king  as  he  was — no  more. 
Still,  in  the  drawing  of  the  fine  figure  with  the 
slim  legs  and  the  dignified  court  costume,  how 
beautifully  he  handled  the  blacks!  What  a  fine 
grey  he  got  in  the  ground!  What  a  good  red  in 
the  table-cloth!  The  figure  is,  perhaps,  more  sat- 
isfactory than  the  head.  The  latter  seems  less 
effective  than  in  the  smaller  version  (No.  1183) 
though  there  is  not  much  difference  between  them. 
The  hands  have  been  hurt  somewhat. 

1183.   Philip  IV,     It  is  difficult  to  determine  whether 

*  this  head  preceded  or  followed  the  head  in  No.  1 182. 
It  is  possibly  an  original  study.  The  colour  helps 
it  out  decoratively  and  yet,  perhaps,  the  armour 
was  an  afterthought  painted  by  Velasquez  some 


VELASQUEZ,  DIEGO  DE  SILVA  Y  73 

years  after  the  head.  The  head  is  harder  in  draw- 
ing than  the  bust.  The  king  appears  about  eight- 
een or  nineteen  years  of  age  and  Velasquez  was 
about  twenty-four. 

Portrait    of   the    Infante    Don    Carlos.     This 

portrait  shows  a  brother  of  Philip  IV  who  died  in 
1632.  It  is  comparable  to  the  full-length  of  the 
king  (No.  1182)  but  in  many  ways  is  a  more  satis- 
factory picture.  The  subject  is  a  stronger,  more 
sturdy  character,  seems  more  firm  in  body,  and 
stands  better.  How  well  he  stands  and  how  posi- 
tive he  looks!  Notice,  too,  that  he  stands  within 
the  frame,  a  little  farther  back  than  the  king  (No. 
1182),  and  that  the  room  with  its  atmosphere  seems 
more  apparent.  The  figure,  again,  is  more  graceful, 
more  commanding  in  its  courtly  elegance.  And 
what  a  beautiful  costume  this  is!  The  blacks  are 
shrewdly  varied,  the  gold  chain  lends  a  little  relief 
of  colour,  and  the  gloves  and  hair  repeat  this  col- 
our note.  This  is  certainly  a  very  beautiful  early 
Velasquez.  The  painter's  later  style  is,  perhaps, 
to  be  preferred,  but  such  work  as  this  must  com- 
mand a  mighty  respect.  To  be  sure,  it  is  still  hard 
in  drawing  though  a  little  later  than  No.  1182, 
rather  cool  in  colour,  and  with  a  plain  grey  ground. 
But  it  has  skill,  power,  point  of  view,  simplicity, 
reserve — almost  all  the  great  qualities  of  his  later 
work. 

Portrait   of  Dona   Maria,  Queen  of  Hungary. 


This  is  evidently  a  later  portrait  than  No.  1188,  for 
it  is  done  in  a  looser,  freer  style,  as  one  may  see  by 
examining  the  hair  and  costume;  but  the  doing 
of  the  face  is  not  very  different  from  that  of  the 
early  Philip  near  it  (No.  1183).    The  brush  is  dry 


74  THE  PRADO 

and  not  very  colourful.  A  fine  head,  however. 
The  lady  was  a  sister  of  Philip  IV  and  considered 
a  great  beauty  in  her  day.  She  appears  here  about 
twenty-five  years  of  age. 

1170.    Bacchus  (Lo8  Borrachos).     The  picture  was 

**       painted  before  Velasquez  made  his  first  trip  to 

Italy  and  is  reminiscent  of  the  Spanish  art  of,  say, 
Ribalta,  Pacheco,  and  one  knows  not  who  else; 
but  under  it  one  feels  the  power  of  the  still  unde- 
veloped Velasquez.  He  was  thirty  when  he  painted 
this  and  was  still  growing  in  strength,  ease,  skill, 
taste.  The  half -nude  Bacchus  calls  for  much  ap- 
plause but  the  group  of  four  to  the  right  is  just  as 
fine.  They  are  Spanish  peasant  types  done  with 
a  hard,  positive  truth  that  is  impressive.  What 
heads  they  have!  And  what  expressive  faces! 
Look  at  the  savage  holding  the  bowl  of  wine.  And 
look,  too,  at  the  bowl.  See  also  the  still-life  on  the 
ground.  The  lumpy,  fat  Bacchus  or  the  satyr  at 
the  left  is  in  the  same  vein  of  broad  realism  as 
the  still-life.  Truth  and  its  technical  rendering 
make  up  the  picture  more  than  any  imaginings 
about  classic  myth  or  Bacchic  legend.  The  picture 
has  darkened  some  by  time  and  is  stained  in  the 
sky,  though  it  was  probably  always  dark  in  tone. 
The  lighting,  the  tone,  the  atmosphere  of  this  pic- 
ture are  inadequate,  insufficient,  undeveloped  for 
Velasquez,  as  we  shall  see  further  on. 

1171.   The  Forge  of   Vulcan.     Painted   during   the 

**       first  visit  of  Velasquez  in  Rome  and  done  in  a 

looser  and  freer  style  than  the  Bacchus.  There  is 
no  loss  of  modelling  in  the  figures  but  they  are 
easier  in  handling  and  show  less  surface  hardness. 
How  beautifully  they  are  drawn!    How  they  stand 


VELASQUEZ,  DIEGO  DE  SILVA  Y  75 

aghast  at  the  story  told  by  Apollo!  What  backs 
and  legs  and  heads!  What  forges,  armour,  and 
hammers!  Look  at  the  little  white  jug  on  the 
shelf.  If  people  want  realism  of  the  fact,  why, 
here  it  is — realism  of  texture  and  surface  as  well 
as  drawing  and  modelling.  The  little  Apollo  with 
his  sharp  profile  is  the  poorest  part  of  the  picture. 
How  badly  his  robe  is  done  compared  with  the 
clout  of  the  man  with  his  back  to  us!  The  light 
here  is  not  so  artificial  as  in  the  Bacchus.  There  is 
more  diffusion,  more  of  an  attempt  at  open-air 
light,  the  shadows  are  not  so  hard  and  black,  and 
there  is  more  atmosphere.  The  canvas  is  pieced 
out  at  both  sides.  It  seems  to  have  been  a  Velas- 
quez failing  not  to  know  how  much  space  his  fig- 
ures would  require  until  he  saw  them  on  the 
canvas.     A  fine — a  very  fine  picture. 

Equestrian  Portrait  of  Philip  IV,     The  age  of 

the  king  indicates  the  period  when  the  portrait  was 
painted.  It  is  looser  in  handling  than  No.  1171 
and  perhaps  a  little  more  careless  in  spots,  as  in  the 
ornament  on  the  hat,  or  the  flying  sash,  or  the  cuff 
above  the  glove.  The  bulk  of  the  figure  is  well 
given  and  the  figure  sits  the  horse  fairly  well,  though 
Velasquez  was  not  satisfied  with  the  first  drawing 
of  it.  It  was  put  in  and  afterward  changed,  as  one 
may  still  see  by  the  half-obliterated  paint  about 
the  chest  and  back  line — the  half -obliterated  part  of 
it  being  peculiarly  fetching  to  modern  artists  and 
leading  on  to  much  senseless  imitation.  So,  too, 
with  the  horse.  There  are  two  extra  hind  legs  still 
to  be  made  out.  Besides,  the  canvas  has  been 
pieced  out  on  both  sides,  at  the  left-hand  lower 
comer,  and  somewhat  altered  elsewhere.  There 
was  difficulty  experienced  with  it,  but  it  was  finally 


76  THE  PRADO 

overcome.  As  a  total  result  the  king  rides  well, 
rides  gracefully,  rides  like  a  king.  What  a  well-knit 
combination  of  horse  and  man!  What  a  wonder- 
ful statue  in  bronze  it  would  make  I  The  lines  are 
really  more  sculpturesque  than  picturesque  but 
superb,  nevertheless.  The  lighting  is  a  little  un- 
certain, a  mixture  of  sunlight  and  studio  light,  and 
the  landscape  is  merely  an  effective  background 
helping  out  the  colour  scheme.  The  colour  is  clear, 
devoid  of  blackness,  highly  decorative.  Velasquez 
learned  something  about  that  in  Italy — learned 
much  about  colour,  light,  handling,  style — ^yet  it 
is  not  possible  to  trace  in  his  work  tie  influence  of 
any  one  Italian  painter  or  even  one  Italian  school 
of  painting.  He  absorbed  and  assimilated  every- 
where but  imitated  no  painter,  no  particular  style. 
He  had  his  own  point  of  view  and  clung  to  it,  seeing 
nature  in  his  own  large  way  and  painting  her  in  his 
own  large  manner. 

1181.    Equestrian  Portrait  of  the  Duke  of  Olivares. 

A  portrait  of  about  the  same  quality  as  the  Philip 
(No.  1178).  One  may  have  his  preferences  and 
think,  perhaps,  the  Olivares  the  better  in  the  big 
body  of  both  man  and  horse.  In  some  respects  it 
seems  surer  in  the  doing,  less  careless,  or  perhaps  we 
should  say  less  experimental,  as  though  the  painter 
knew  better  what  he  wanted  to  do  and  did  it  better. 
The  horse  is  a  fine  beast  and  with  the  rider  cuts 
something  of  a  figure  considering  that  neither  of 
them  cut  any  such  figure  in  the  life.  The  Count 
was  never  under  fire  and  the  battle  at  the  back  is 
wholly  imaginary  with  the  painter.  But  the  battle 
and  the  landscape  make  up  a  mere  background  for 
the  figure,  as  in  the  case  of  the  equestrian  Philip. 
Neither  of  these  groups  fits  in  the  landscape  quite 


4e4e 


VELASQUEZ,  DIEGO  DE  SILVA  Y  77 

as  it  should.  Each  stands  out  too  much.  See  in 
the  Breda  picture  (No.  1172)  how  much  better 
Velasquez  has  made  his  groups  stand  in,  or,  as  a 
supreme  example  of  this,  see  Las  Meninas  (No. 
1174).  Still,  the  Olivares  and  the  Philip  are  won- 
derful performances,  the  01iva*res  excelling  in  bulk 
and  weight,  the  Philip  in  graceful  line  and  refined 
colour. 

1208.   The   God  Mars.     It  is   an  academic  affair, 

rather  formal  in  arrangement  and  not  entrancing 
in  colour.  As  an  embodiment  of  war  Velasquez 
may  have  had  certain  ideas  about  it,  but  as  Greek 
tradition  it  is  not  profound.  Perhaps  a  Mars  with 
a  moustache  may  cau^e  the  flippant  to  smile,  but 
that  is  not  the  way  to  look  at  the  picture.  It  is  a 
very  good  piece  of  drawing  and  painting,  and  as 
such  is  worthy  of  study;  as  for  the  handling,  it  is 
loose  and  free  but  sure  and  true  in  every  stroke. 
The  colouring  is  a  little  warm.  It  is  not  to  be 
regarded  as  a  profound  expression  of  thought  or 
feeling. 

1210 1 The  Villa  Medici,  Rome,   These  are  interesting 

1211  J  studies  of  landscape,  showing  the  eye  and  hand  of 
the  painter  turned  from  figures  a  moment  to  sketch 
the  nature  about  him  in  Rome.  The  key  of  col- 
our is  in  silver  greys  and  greens.  This  should  be 
remembered,  for  in  his  later  pictures  this  key  was 
continued  by  Velasquez.  The  black-shadowed, 
brown-hued  affairs  so  often  set  down  to  him  may 
be  put  down  as  largely  belonging  to  his  following. 
At  first  Velasquez  himself  painted  in  browns  and 
dark  greys  but  not  frequently  after  his  first  visit 
to  Italy. 


78  THE  PRADO 

1201  ]  Portraits  of  Dwarfs.     Of  these  dwarf  portraits 

1202  I  perhaps  the  No.  1204  is  the  most  interesting  in 

1204  I  painting,  the  head  being  superb  in  the  manner  of 

1205  J  its  doing.     The  head  in  No.  1205  is  also  excellent 

*  but  the  ruff  and  cuff  have  been  sketchily  added. 
Notice  the  still-Hfe  in  No.  1201  and  again  the  ex- 
cellent head.  These  dwarfs  seem  of  small  impor- 
tance in  this  great  roomful  of  splendid  pictures  by 
Velasquez,  but  in  reality  they  too  are  splendidly 
seen  and  executed. 

1198.   Pahlillos  de  ValladoUd,    This  is  one  of  the 

*  most  carefully  done  of  the  early  Velasquezes,  its 
care  and  its  colour  scheme  suggesting  early  work 
but  its  handling  seemingly  placing  it  after  his  first 
Italian  journey.  How  well  drawn  and  well  painted 
it  is  in  head  and  dress  and  figure!  The  movement 
of  the  figure,  the  gesture,  is  rather  unique  among 
the  portraits  of  Velasquez.  He  is  usually  given 
to  painting  the  sitter  in  repose — even  frankly  and 
formally  posing  the  sitter  for  a  portrait  and  with 
no  pretence  of  anything  else  than  a  frank  pose. 
The  background  apparently  has  suffered  in  some 
way  and  seems  to  have  been  repainted. 

1180.    Equestrian  Portrait  of  Prince  Baltasar  Carlos. 

A  charming  child's  portrait  showing,  perhaps,  a 
childish  consciousness  of  royalty  but  with  a  su- 
perb little  air  of  distinction,  indifference,  even 
haughtiness.  The  face  is  a  little  pallid,  the  hair 
and  hat  just  a  little  mauled  by  the  brush,  the  dress 
beautifully  done,  as  also  the  head  of  the  barrel- 
bellied  pony.  The  pony's  tail  is,  perhaps,  unneces- 
sarily painty.  A  very  spirited  picture  with  grace- 
ful lines  and  excellent  movement.  It  is  the  most 
admired  of  the  equestrian  portraits  not  only  for 


«« 


VELASQUEZ,  DIEGO  DE  SILVA  Y  79 

its  spirit  and  the  characterisation  of  the  little  prince 
but  for  its  fine,  clear  colour.  The  landscape  is  cold 
in  its  blues  compared  with  No.  1189.  Patched  at 
the  top  and  bottom  and  damaged  by  cleaning. 

Portrait  of  a  Buffoon  {Don  Juan  of  Austria), 

Interesting  as  showing  how  Velasquez,  late  in  his 
career,  laid  in  his  figures.  This  portrait  was  thinly 
rubbed  in  and  perhaps  never  entirely  completed. 
Look  at  the  breeches  or  stockings,  for  example. 
Perhaps  Velasquez  liked  it  as  it  now  is  and  did  not 
wish  to  carry  it  further.  The  handling  is  easy, 
sure,  direct,  not  repeated  or  fussed  over.  It  looks 
carelessly  done  but  is  far  from  it.  Every  stroke 
was  thought  out,  premeditated,  and  proved  to  be 
exactly  and  infallibly  right.  How  the  man  leans 
forward!  How  his  feet  strike  the  ground!  How 
the  type  and  the  character  are  given!  And  what 
a  fine  colour  study  of  pinks  and  blacks  into  the 
bargain! 

Surrender  of  Breda,  The  picture  is  some- 
times called  Las  Lanzas.  The  formal  composition 
— two  oblongs  at  the  left,  one  of  sky  and  one  of 
lower  figures,  and  an  upright  of  lances  at  the  right 
— would  have  paralysed  the  mind  and  hand  of  an 
ordinary  painter  at  the  start.  But  what  a  picture 
Velasquez  has  made  by  and  with  this  simple  ar- 
rangement! He  turned  every  bit  of  it  to  account  in 
telling  the  tale  of  the  surrender.  The  action  turns 
on  the  central  figures  with  the  key  of  the  city  gate 
between  them.  The  vista  beyond  and  back  of  the 
key  discloses  the  figures  in  the  second  plane.  From 
these  the  hills  roll  into  a  ridge  overlooking  the  dis- 
tant background.  There  is  a  marked  contrast  be- 
tween the  groups  at  the  left  and  at  the  right.    The 


80  THE  PRADO 

upright  bunched  lances  at  the  right  suggest  the 
order,  precision,  and  command  of  the  victorious 
Spaniards,  while  the  wabbHng  halberds  and  pen- 
nants, the  disorder  and  disarray  at  the  left  suggest 
the  confusion  of  the  conquered  Netherlanders.  Jus- 
tin of  Nassau,  with  his  deferential  bearing,  present- 
ing the  key  of  the  city,  and  Spinola,  with  his  sym- 
pathetic protest,  are  superb  in  spirit  and  quite  right 
in  realisation.  These  two  figures  make  the  rounded 
or  oval  group  in  the  centre  that  offsets  and  con- 
trasts with  the  rigidity  of  the  spears  and  the  hal- 
berds. How  accurately,  carefully,  beautifully  as 
well  as  truthfully  these  figures  are  painted!  Look 
at  the  Spinola  armour,  sash,  hat,  and  boots  or  the 
costume  of  the  humbled  Justin  of  Nassau.  They 
could  not  be  bettered.  And  what  a  horse — how 
beautifully  drawn  and  painted  I  Velasquez  himself 
appears  at  the  right  of  the  horse's  head.  The  col- 
our is  cool  but  fine,  with  no  high,  screaming  notes. 
It  is  highly  decorative  and  yet  realistically  true  in 
the  sense  that  it  is  seen  under  one  light  and  is  in 
perfect  tone.  The  ensemble  of  it,  the  hold-together 
of  it  did  not  admit  of  any  emphasis  of  any  one  note. 
Every  tone  and  every  shade  was  required  to  keep 
its  place  in  the  whole  just  as  it  would  do  in  the 
natural  scene.  That  is  the  gist  of  the  painter's 
great  realism — his  great  truth.  The  harmony  is 
quite  perfect.  A  world-famous  canvas  that  de- 
serves its  fame.  It  was  painted  when  Velasquez 
was  forty-five.  Somewhat  injured  above  Spinola's 
head  and  elsewhere. 

1195.    Portrait  of  Diego  de  Corral  y  Arellano.     After 

looking  at  the  Surrender  of  Breda  picture  this  por- 
trait, hanging  next  to  it,  seems  a  little  too  cramped 
in  handling  and  wanting  in  freedom.     It  is  done 


VELASQUEZ,  DIEGO  DE  SILVA  Y  81 

with  some  precision,  some  truth,  some  force.  The 
dress  is  well  given,  but  is  a  little  flat,  and  the  head  is 
not  too  sure  in  drawing.  The  picture  seems  official 
in  quality  and  tells  us  very  little  of  Velasquez.  It 
has  been  repainted. 

1167.   The  Crucified  Christ.    As  a  matter  of  religious 

*  sentiment  or  feeling  it  is  negligible.  Velasquez  had 
no  sentiment  of  that  kind  and  never  showed  it  in 
his  pictures.  As  a  nude  figure  it  is  delicate,  refined 
in  line  as  in  colour,  quite  pure,  and  decidedly  effec- 
tive. The  partial  hiding  of  the  face  by  the  falling 
hair  was  doubtless  designed  to  make  the  face  mys- 
terious and  thereby  appeal  to  the  imagination  of 
the  spectator.  The  figure  and  also  the  wood  of  the 
cross  stand  out  too  much.  They  fail  to  recede 
though  there  is  a  suggestion  of  depth  and  gloom 
in  the  background.  The  picture  hardly  reveals 
the  Velasquez  of  fame  though  it  has  been  made 
famous  by  much  praise — some  of  it  justified,  of 
course. 

'^1196.    Portrait  of  Dona  Antonia  Ipeharrieta  y  Galdos, 

This  portrait  shows  a  stern,  sad-faced  lady  of  rank 
in  dark  dress  on  a  brown  ground.  The  one  colour 
note  in  it  is  the  red  chair  which  is  a  little  violent 
and  too  prominent.  The  figure  does  not  stand  well 
and  the  aerial  setting  is  not  apparent  nor  is  it  felt. 
The  child  was  an  after-thought  and  probably  added 
by  some  other  painter  than  the  one  who  painted  the 
woman.  Neither  figure  is  too  near  to  Velasquez. 
Much  cleaned  and  retouched. 

1184.    Philip  IV  in  Shooting  Costume,     This  is  the 

*  full-length  in  shooting  garb  done  a  few  years 
later  than  the  full-length  in  the  National  Gallery, 
London  (No.  1129).     It  is  very  much  surer  and 


82  THE  PRADO 

truer,  more  exact  in  drawing  and  handling  than 
the  London  picture,  though  Velasquez's  style  was 
broadening  and  loosening  at  the  time  he  did  it. 
The  hair,  coat,  and  glove  are  excellent.  The  doing 
of  the  sleeve  and  collar  should  be  compared  closely 
with  the  London  picture,  for  here  everything  is 
exactly  right  as  there  almost  everything  is  open  to 
question  as  regards  accuracy.  The  legs  in  this 
picture  are  a  little  disturbing  owing  to  alterations 
and  emendations  without  sufficient  painting  out 
of  the  first  drawing.  The  larger  outline  of  the  left 
leg  is  still  apparent  and  is  a  bit  distracting.  Also 
the  gun-barrel  and  the  landscape  at  the  right  of  the 
hip  have  been  changed  and  the  underpainting  in- 
sufficiently rubbed  out.  But  it  is  a  fine  portrait. 
And  with  an  excellent  dog.  See  the  note  on  the 
London  full-length,  which  is  almost  surely  by 
Mazo. 

1186.    Don  Ferdinand  of  Austria,     This  portrait  is 

*  very  like  the  Philip  near  it  but,  perhaps,  is  not  so 
carefully  done,  though  the  head  seems  stronger  and 
better  than  that  of  the  Philip.  One  hardly  knows 
which  to  admire  the  more,  the  man  or  the  dog. 
The  dog  seems  to  have  more  character,  more  force 
for  a  dog  than  the  Prince  for  a  man,  but  he  is,  per- 
haps, overprominent  in  the  picture.  As  a  dog  he 
cannot  be  matched  in  any  other  canvas  in  existence, 
being  quite  perfect  in  every  respect.  The  portrait 
as  a  whole  is,  perhaps,  more  interesting  than  the 
Philip  (No.  1184).  It  has  been  amended  and 
changed  somewhat  by  the  painter.  The  first  out- 
line of  the  neck  and  shoulders  has  been  carelessly 
rubbed  out  and  the  second  drawing  was  put  in 
smaller.  There  seems  to  have  been  trouble  in 
fitting  the  head  on  the  shoulders. 


VELASQUEZ,  DIEGO  DE  SILVA  Y  83 

-Prince  Baltasar  Carlos  in  Shooting  Costume. 


A  fine  child's  head  and  with  a  figure  that  truly 
complements  it.  How  well  all  of  Velasquez's  peo- 
ple stand  on  their  feet  I  And  how  restfuUy  they 
stand — even  this  little  boy  I  Look  at  his  little  feet 
and  legs — how  positively  right  they  are  I  The 
portrait  was  done  at  about  the  same  time  as  the 
two  portraits  in  hunting  costume  near  it  (Nos. 
1184,  1186),  though  the  handling  of  the  dress  ap- 
pears just  a  trifle  broader.  The  landscape  is  a  bit 
chalky  and  the  dogs  are  not  so  good  as  elsewhere 
— in  Las  Meninas,  for  instance.  The  canvas  is 
pieced  out  at  the  top. 

The  Maids  of  Honour  (Las  Meninas).      The 

scene  represented  is  in  a  room  in  the  palace  occupied 
by  the  painter  as  a  studio.  Velasquez  himself  at 
the  canvas  is  painting  the  portrait  of  the  king  and 
queen  who  are  supposed  to  be  in  about  the  posi- 
tion of  the  spectator.  The  reflection  of  the  king 
and  queen  is  seen  in  a  rather  bright  mirror  on  the 
wall  at  the  end  of  the  room.  The  king  is  supposed 
to  have  seen  the  Infanta  with  her  maids  in  that 
position  and  suggested  to  the  painter  the  pictorial 
possibilities  of  the  scene;  but  of  that  we  have  no 
direct  proof.  At  any  rate,  Velasquez  was  the 
mind,  eye,  and  hand  that  put  it  together.  It  is 
done  in  his  late  style  and  is  his  most  celebrated 
picture.  As  a  piece  of  illusion  (the  very  thing 
usually  condemned  in  pictures)  it  is  something  as- 
tonishing. The  canvas  "  breaks  through  the  wall,'* 
as  painters  say.  Seeing  it  from  across  the  room, 
one  feels  as  though  he  might  walk  into  the  canvas, 
so  amazingly  does  it  set  in  and  run  back  from  the 
frame.  One  gets  the  first  surprise  from  the  back 
of  the  huge  canvas  and  stretcher  at  the  left.    This 


84  THE  PRADO 

to  start  with  sets  in  from  the  picture-frame,  and 
from  it  the  eye  immediately  travels  to  the  receding 
figures  on  the  right  of  it  and  the  painter  (Velasquez) 
with  palette  and  brushes  back  of  it.  Then  comes 
the  rear  wall  with  its  pictures,  and  back  of  that  a 
still-receding  passage  with  a  figure  on  the  steps 
leading  out  to  a  Hghted  court.  At  the  right  of  the 
canvas  one  meets  with  the  same  linear  and  aerial 
perspective,  taking  him  positively  and  remorse- 
lessly back  into  the  picture.  The  eye  picks  up  the 
huge  dog  (what  a  solid  bulk  of  dog  he  is  and  how 
that  little  dwarf's  foot  pushes  but  fails  to  move 
him  I)  lying  in  from  the  picture-frame.  Then  comes 
the  diagonal  recession  of  the  three  figures,  then  the 
two  figures  in  the  middle  distance,  and  then  again 
that  figure  on  the  steps  at  the  back.  The  right 
wall  with  its  hanging  pictures  seen  in  perspective 
receding  each  in  value  helps  on  the  illusion.  And 
will  you  notice  that  the  ceiling  above  does  the 
same  thing?  The  centre  pieces  of  different  values 
carry  your  eye  back,  and  the  raw  edge  of  the 
wooden  stretcher  high  up  at  the  left  is  so  abso- 
lutely true  in  value  that  you  must  feel  the  space 
and  air  between  it  and  the  back  wall.  It  is  all 
most  amazing  in  its  doing,  and  only  one  note  raises 
a  question  or  stirs  a  doubt.  That  is,  the  mirror  on 
the  rear  wall  reflecting  the  king  and  queen.  It 
seems  too  high-keyed  in  light.  Possibly  it  was 
put  in  that  way  to  illumine  the  background  but 
more  probably  to  please  the  king. 

Astonishing  as  this  illusion  is,  it  would  hardly 
make  Las  Meninas  either  famous  or  great  art 
without  other  excelling  features.  Nor  would  its 
almost  perfect  drawing  and  painting  be  sufficient 
to  place  it  with  the  world's  great  masterpieces.     In 


VELASQUEZ,  DIEGO  DE  SILVA  Y  85 

these  latter  respects  the  picture  is  undoubtedly  one 
of  the  best  Velasquez  ever  did.  The  little  Infanta 
in  the  centre,  with  her  childish  face  and  pretty  hair, 
her  hoop-skirt  dress,  and  all  that,  is  quite  right  in 
every  way,  as  are  also  her  attendant  maids.  Noth- 
ing could  be  finer  in  grouping  or  more  infallible 
in  placing.  The  handling  is  broad,  free,  effective, 
masterful.  It  is  the  very  top  notch  of  painting. 
But  to  all  this  illusion,  skill,  and  mastery  Velasquez 
also  brought  a  sense  of  beauty  and  a  decorative 
quality.  How  superb  the  whole  thing  is  in  colour, 
in  light,  in  shadow,  in  air!  What  a  beautiful  har- 
mony of  varying  hues  are  held  together  by  the  light 
and  atmosphere  of  the  room!  And  what  lovely 
types  of  children — the  attendant  maids  at  left  and 
right  not  less  so  than  the  Infanta  herself!  What  a 
graceful  attitude  that  of  the  maid  at  the  left — the 
older  one  at  the  right  being,  perhaps,  more  con- 
scious but  still  attractive !  And  the  heavy,  ugly 
dwarf  placed  next  to  the  rather  handsome  little 
dwarf  at  the  right  and  opposite  the  Infanta  and 
her  maids  was  not  put  there  for  mere  truth's  sake. 
As  a  type  and  as  colour  she  is  a  foil  and  a  con- 
trast to  the  others.  The  painter  at  the  left  and 
the  couple  at  the  right  balancing  him  are  less  no- 
ticeable. And,  again,  the  dog — what  a  massive, 
powerful  brute!  And  with  what  a  massive,  power- 
ful touch  he  is  painted!  In  varying  degree,  mod- 
ulated here,  flowing  there,  absolute  everywhere, 
the  whole  picture  is  painted  with  the  same  power- 
ful brush.  Finally,  go  across  the  room  and  see 
how  wonderfully  the  picture  is  held  together.  Its 
unity  is  supreme.  It  is  all  of  a  piece,  and  the  eye 
sees  it  as  a  whole  as  the  actual  scene  before  one 
might  have  been.     It  is  a  very  great  picture — great 


86  THE  PRADO 

beyond  words  to  tell.  The  Order  of  Santiago  on 
the  painter's  coat  lapel  was  put  on  after  the  death 
of  Velasquez,  and  the  pretty  story  of  the  king  com- 
pleting the  picture  by  painting  in  the  decoration 
with  his  own  hand  is  a  fiction.  The  picture  has 
been  hurt  by  cleaning. 

1175.  Mercury  and  Argus,  The  form  of  the  com- 
position was  dictated  by  the  place  in  the  Room  of 
Mirrors  for  which  it  was  painted.  It  is  broadly 
and  freely  handled,  considerably  changed  and 
amended  about  the  hat  and  shoulders  of  the  Mer- 
cury, pieced  out  at  the  top  to  give  it  space.  The 
colour  scheme  is  rather  warm,  and  the  whole  effect 
decorative  in  the  sense  that  one  feels  it  belongs 
not  here  but  in  a  panel  of  a  room. 

1203.    Portrait    of    a    Dwarf    of    Philip    IV.      After 

studying  the  other  pictures  by  Velasquez  in  this 
room  and  feeling  that  perhaps  we  know  his  accu- 
racy and  sureness  of  touch  even  in  his  broadest  and 
freest  manner,  are  we  to  believe  that  this  rather 
ill-drawn  and  heavily  painted  picture  is  by  him? 
Look  at  the  thumbed  head  and  hair,  the  badly 
drawn  arms  and  coat,  the  ineffective  pattern  of  the 
cloth,  that  tortured  hat,  the  bad  boots  and  feet, 
the  wooden  dog,  and  the  floor  that  runs  up  but  not 
back.  It  may  be  a  hastily  prepared  sketch,  but 
it  has  the  look  of  a  careless  school  piece. 

1173.    The  Tapestry  Weavers.      This  picture  should 

***  be  studied  from  across  the  room  to  get  the  ensemble 
of  it.  It  is  not  so  perfect  an  illusion  as  Las  Meni- 
nas,  but  it  is  something  similar  as  regards  its  realism 
and  its  composition.  The  recession  of  the  figures 
into  the  picture  is  once  more  wonderfully  given. 


VELASQUEZ,  DIEGO  DE  SILVA  Y  87 

The  red  curtain  at  the  left  is  used  here  as  a  catch 
point  for  the  eye  instead  of  the  canvas  and  stretcher 
as  in  Las  Meninas.  The  figure  back  of  it,  the  ladder 
against  the  wall,  the  recess  with  more  figures,  and 
back  of  them  a  tapestry  stretched  upon  the  wall 
are  all  inconspicuous  catch  points  of  colour  or  of 
light  whereby  the  eye  is  led  into  the  background. 
The  same  recession  takes  place  upon  the  right  side, 
with  the  figures,  the  door,  the  wall,  the  recess  at  the 
back.  The  walls  and  ceiling  do  not  help  out  so 
much  here  as  the  receding  floor  and  the  flight  of 
steps.  Nor  is  the  aerial  effect  so  pronounced  as  in 
Las  Meninas.  Instead  of  that  Velasquez  has  relied 
more  upon  a  repetition  of  planes  in  light  and  dark. 
The  light  figures  in  the  foreground  are  followed  by 
a  dark  wall,  which  in  turn  is  followed  by  a  light 
recess  and  still  again  by  a  well-lighted  tapestry  at 
the  back.  It  is  all  very  cunningly  and  shrewdly 
done  but  perhaps  more  laboured  and  less  effec- 
tively carried  out  than  the  plan  of  Las  Meninas. 

But  here  again  Velasquez  has  not  relied  upon 
illusion  or  mere  skill  or  the  actuality  of  the  scene  to 
carry  his  picture.  Once  more  we  have  a  decorative 
scheme  of  bright  colour,  with  light,  air,  and  lumi- 
nous shadow.  It  is  less  wonderful,  less  harmonious, 
less  refined  than  Las  Meninas;  but  we  need  not 
grumble  about  it.  By  itself  considered  it  is  very 
fine — a  masterpiece  in  fact.  For  there  is  here  again 
the  sense  of  beauty  not  only  in  the  lovely  small 
figures,  the  beautiful  colour,  and  the  charming  light 
and  air  of  that  recess  at  the  back  but  in  the  arm, 
head,  neck,  and  hair  of  that  wonderful  figure  in 
blue  at  the  right,  in  her  companion  to  the  extreme 
right,  in  the  old  woman  at  the  spindle  or  the  young 
woman  by  the  curtain.     The  figure  in  blue  is  the 


88  THE  PRADO 

central  light  of  the  picture  and  the  most  beautiful 
object  in  it. 

A  famous  picture  and  again  worthy  of  its  fame 
even  if  not  so  extraordinary  as  Las  Meninas.  It 
is,  unfortunately,  in  bad  condition.  The  central 
seated  figure  in  red  is  blurred  in  the  face,  and  the 
woman  at  the  wheel  has  darkened.  There  has 
been  much  restoration.  The  canvas  is  patched  at 
the  top  and  sides.  The  painter's  feeling  for  space 
was  always  calling  for  more  canvas. 

1206.   Msop.     This   is   merely  an   old   bull-fighter, 

*  crippled  in  the  legs  and  feet,  posing  as  a  philoso- 
pher. As  a  matter  of  battered  physical  presence,  of 
bone  and  muscle  and  bulk,  he  is  really  superb 
though  not  of  noble  strain.  Look  at  the  modelling 
of  the  rather  brutal  face  and  head,  the  wonderful 
drawing  of  the  eyes,  the  modelling  of  the  cheek- 
bones and  the  flattened  nose.  They  are  perfect. 
The  face  is  pallid,  and  the  hair  is  now  disturbing 
because  too  chalky  and  perhaps  a  little  out  of  value. 
As  colour  the  picture  counts  for  little,  but  as  a 
presentation  of  a  figure  standing  in  a  given  space, 
a  piece  of  work  freely  and  easily  done,  with  that 
perfect  mastery  that  finally  came  to  Velasquez,  it  is 
a  noteworthy  example.  The  brush-work  here  seems 
even  to  boast  its  combined  accuracy  and  freedom. 

1185.  Bust  Portrait  of  Philip  IV.  It  is  not  SO  satis- 
factory as  a  similar  head,  done  about  the  same 
time  or  a  little  later,  in  the  National  Gallery, 
London  (No.  745).  The  dress  here  is  simply 
painted  and  with  a  few  strokes.  The  hair,  fore- 
head, and  eyes  are  excellent,  as  also  the  mouth. 
The  cheek-bones  seem  to  have  lost  some  of  their 
modelling  owing  to  much  rubbing.     It  is  more 


* 


VELASQUEZ,  DIEGO  DE  SILVA  Y  89 

sketchy  than  the  London  portrait  but  is,  after  its 
kind,  just  as  true.     A  fine  portrait. 

1193.    Portrait  of  the  Count  of  Benavente.     With  its 

dark  curtain,  its  elaborate  armour,  its  smooth  face, 
careful  hair  and  beard,  shoe-button  eyes,  pinched 
nose  and  mouth,  it  seems  to  contradict  every  other 
Velasquez  in  the  room.  It  is  a  rather  good  portrait, 
but  is  it  by  Velasquez?  It  does  not  look  it.  How 
the  table  pushes  the  man  out  against  the  picture- 
frame!  It  is  much  repainted,  which  may  account 
for  its  failure  to  correspond  with  other  works  by 
Velasquez,  though  it  seems  to  be  more  in  the  style 
of  Mazo. 

1207.   Menippus,    A  companion  panel  to  the  ^Esop 

*  but  of  a  better  quality,  with  truer  light  and  more 
agreeable  colour.  An  old  beggar  again  posing  as 
a  sage,  with  some  remarkable  painting  in  the  head 
and  cloak,  and  a  superb  poise  and  placing  of  the 
figure.  How  absolutely  true  that  posture,  that 
bend,  that  turn  of  the  head!  Look  at  the  jug 
painted  in  shadow.  Again,  how  absolute  it  is! 
Velasquez  is  always  offering  small  surprises  of  this 
kind. 

1194.    Montanes  the  Sculptor.    With  some  fine  draw- 

*  ing  in  the  eyes  and  cheeks  and  a  well-modelled  fore- 
head. The  figure,  too,  has  weight  and  thickness. 
Is  the  little  white  whisker  on  the  chin  perhaps  too 
high  in  light?  It  seems  to  be  pasted  on  the  chin 
rather  than  grown  there.  The  sculpture  at  the  right 
is  merely  suggested,  not  finished.  A  fine  portrait  of 
the  painter's  second  or  middle  period. 

1169.    St.  Anthony,  Abbot,  and  St.  Paul.     The  most 

remarkable  thing  about  this  picture  is  the  over- 


90  THE  PRADO 

accented  raven  with  the  bread.  Both  the  raven 
and  bread  are  so  false  in  value  that  they  come  for- 
ward, even  outside  of  the  picture-frame.  There 
is  not  too  much  certainty  about  either  the  figures 
or  the  landscape  being  by  Velasquez.  The  hands 
alone  would  seem  to  warrant  emphatic  doubts. 
The  canvas  has  been  added  to  at  the  top  and 
corners,  but  that  does  not  make  it  a  Velasquez. 

1190.    Doha   Mariana   of  Austria,     The  figure  here 

*       was  placed  on  too  small  a  canvas  to  start  with.  The 

canvas  was  insufficient  at  the  sides  and  was  pieced 
out  at  the  top,  where  a  badly  painted  curtain  has 
been  rubbed  in,  perhaps  by  some  later  hand  than 
that  of  Velasquez.  The  whole  of  the  curtain  is 
bad,  the  chair  is  not  much  better,  and  only  the  wall, 
the  clock,  and  the  table  keep  their  places.  Even 
the  figure  comes  forward  a  little  too  much.  The 
head  with  its  wig  seems  well  enough  done  and  was 
doubtless  painted  by  Velasquez.  The  dress,  on  the 
contrary,  with  the  table,  chair,  and  clock,  seem  like 
pupil's  work.  The  whole  of  it  is  much  coarser,  less 
delicate,  less  refined  than  the  work  in  the  Maria 
Teresa  of  Austria  (No.  1192),  painted  a  little  later. 
Start  the  comparison  between  the  two  pictures  by 
noting  the  difference  in  the  handkerchiefs  held  by 
each  character  or  the  difference  in  light,  shade,  and 
air  shown  in  the  backgrounds. 

1191.    Doha  Mariana  of  Austria.     This  portrait  hangs 

in  the  long  gallery,  and  from  its  dark  placing  it  is 
impossible  to  form  a  judgment  as  to  whether  it  is  a 
replica  or  a  copy  of  No.  1190.  It  is  of  the  same 
general  character. 

1192.    Doha  Maria  Teresa  of  Austria,      It  is  probably 

**      a  portrait  of  the  Infanta  Margarita.     It  is  another 


VELASQUEZ,  DIEGO  DE  SILVA  Y  91 

illustration  (common  enough  in  this  room)  of  a 
figure  being  originally  placed  on  too  small  a  canvas. 
The  canvas  here  has  been  added  to  at  the  sides  (or 
else  it  was  once  framed  down  too  close)  with  re- 
sults that  now  show  badly  and  are  unhappy.  The 
curtain,  screen,  and  chair  make  a  shadowed  at- 
mospheric setting  of  much  beauty,  and  the  figure 
placed  against  them  yet  in  the  atmosphere  with 
them,  is,  perhaps,  the  most  brilliant  piece  of  Ve- 
lasquez colouring  in  the  Prado.  Aside  from  any 
question  of  characterisation  in  the  sitter,  the  dress, 
with  its  notes  of  red,  silver,  and  warm  white,  is  a 
most  charming  harmony — a  flash  of  court  splendour 
that  is  almost  dazzling.  All  sorts  of  delicate  tones 
are  woven  into  this  fabric.  Notice  the  mauve 
slashings  on  the  sleeves  or  the  indefinite  blue  shad- 
ows of  the  stuffs  at  the  wrists.  All  this  dress  part 
is  done  with  great  delicacy  of  touch  as  well  as 
of  tone.  Look  at  the  transparent  quality  of  the 
handkerchief  or  the  sheen  of  the  red  dress  under 
it  or  again  the  fluffy  sleeves.  The  head  is  dis- 
appointing. The  eyelids  show  badly,  the  nose  is 
putty-like,  the  shadow  under  the  chin  is  not  deli- 
cate enough,  and  the  throat  is  not  drawn  enough 
or  else  it  has  been  rubbed  too  much.  As  for  the 
hair,  the  high  lights  upon  it  are  too  prominent  and 
not  well  placed,  while  the  surface  texture  is  want- 
ing. It  looks  like  hemp,  whereas  it  is  crimped  hair. 
Compare  it  with  the  hair  of  the  Infanta  in  Las 
Meninas  or  even  with  that  of  the  Philip  in  No. 
1185.  It  looks  very  much  as  though  some  re- 
storer had  worked  over  the  face  and  hair  to  their 
great  injury.  In  these  Madrid  portraits  of  the 
Infantas  we  must  keep  in  mind  the  superb  ones 
in  Vienna  (No.  621)  and  the  Louvre  (No.  1731). 


92  THE  PRADO 

Great  painters,  of  course,  nod  at  times,  like  other 
people,  but  they  do  not  blunder  so  badly  as  this 
head  would  indicate.  See  the  notes  on  the  Vienna 
portraits  of  Velasquez. 

1177.    Equestrian    Portrait    of    Dona    Margarita    of 

Austria,  The  horse  and  background  are  painted 
by  one  hand  and  the  figure  of  the  queen  by  another 
hand.  The  horse  is  decidedly  good  and  possibly 
by  Velasquez.  The  queen's  portrait  is  not  his 
work.    The  canvas  is  added  to  at  the  sides. 

1176.  Equestrian  Portrait  of  Philip  III.  Two  differ- 
ent hands  were  originally  at  work  upon  this  picture, 
and  a  third  hand  (that  of  the  restorer)  has  made 
still  further  confusion.  The  result  is  unsatisfactory. 
Velasquez  is  only  to  be  guessed  at  in  the  acces- 
sories and  costume,  not  in  the  face.  The  canvas 
is  added  to  at  the  sides. 

1179.    Equestrian  Portrait  of  Queen  Isabella  of  Bour~ 

hon.  It  is  similar  to  No.  1177  in  that  two  hands 
are  apparent  in  the  work — the  queen  and  her  cos- 
tume by  one,  the  horse  and  landscape  by  the  other. 
The  horse  is  very  good  and  probably  by  some  pupil 
of  Velasquez.  The  canvas  is  added  to  at  the  sides 
and  repainted  in  the  background. 

1199.    Portrait  of  Pernia,     A  very  good  start  for  a 

picture.  It  is  well  laid  in  but  was  never  finished. 
It  is  probably  by  some  pupil  of  Velasquez. 

1224.  Portrait  of  an  Unknown  Man,  It  is  "  attrib- 
uted" to  Velasquez  in  the  catalogue  and  certainly 
looks  like  that  painter's  early  method  and  manner 
but  is,  nevertheless,  probably  by  one  of  his  pupils. 
A  very  good  head  though  somewhat  ill  drawn. 


VERONESE,  PAOLO  83 

484.    Veronese,  Paolo   Caliari.     Portrait  of  a  Lady. 

The  lady  has  no  back  to  her  head,  among  other 
shortcomings.  It  is  not  believable  that  Paolo  did 
this  portrait  or  No.  486  though  done  after  his 
manner  and  method  of  portraiture. 

486.  Portrait  of  a  Lady.  A  bit  coarse  and  per- 
functory in  the  doing  of  it  though  of  the  same 
general  character  as  No.  484.  The  picture  is  at- 
tractive on  account  of  the  colour  and  the  personal 
beauty  of  the  sitter.  It  is  by  some  follower  of 
Paolo. 

482.  Venus  and  Adonis.  This  is  one  of  the  pic- 
tures bought  in  Venice  by  Velasquez  for  the  col- 
lection of  Philip  IV,  and  it  was  a  very  good  pur- 
chase, though  there  may  be  doubts  about  its  being 
a  Paolo.  The  Venus  is  imposing  and  much  the 
Paolo  type,  the  Adonis  is  lumpy,  the  Cupid  is 
Paok)-like  again,  but  the  dogs  are  not  his  at  all, 
and  the  landscape  is  decidedly  too  crude  for  him. 
The  surface  will  not  answer  for  Paolo  either.  There 
is  something  too  flat  and  smooth  about  it.  The 
picture  lacks  in  quality,  in  spirit,  in  inspiration.  ^ 

483.   Susanna.    The  slightness  of  the  figures,  the 

drawing,  the  colour,  the  handling,  the  landscape  of 
this  picture,  all  point  to  the  school  or  the  workshop. 
This  statement  is  equally  true  of  Nos.  494  and  499. 
The  Madrid  Gallery  people  perhaps  accept  the 
superficial  appearance  too  readily  in  these  attribu- 
tions. Paolo's  family  and  pupils  were  responsible 
for  much  of  the  work  given  to  him  in  this  gallery 
and  elsewhere. 

491.    Christ  Disputing  with  the  Doctors.      A  large 

canvas  emanating  from  Paolo's  workshop,  perhaps. 
There  is  small  indication  of  his  hand  in  the  work. 


94  THE  PRADO 

The  colour  is  very  good,  but  the  figures  are  common- 
place, and  there  is  want  of  artistic  feeling  in  the 
picture.  Notice  the  prosaic  type  of  the  boy  Christ 
or  the  heavy  groups  at  the  right  and  left. 

492.    Christ    and    the    Centurion.     The    sky    has 

*  changed  in  colour,  and  the  background  of  archi- 
tecture no  longer  keeps  its  place.  The  result  is 
that  the  figures  in  the  foreground  are  pushed  too 
far  forward.  That  is,  perhaps,  not  a  fault  in  a 
decorative  composition,  though  possibly  Paolo  did 
not  intend  any  such  effect.  The  kneeling  figure 
and  the  soldiers  back  of  the  figure  are  excellent. 
The  figure  of  Christ  is  weaker,  more  effeminate,  less 
forceful.  The  colour  is  good.  Not  a  great  picture 
nor  a  fine  example  of  Paolo,  but  the  best  one  here. 
Perhaps  pupils  worked  upon  it  in  places. 

497.    Martyrdom  of  a  Saint.     If  compared  with  the 

genuine  Paolo,  No.  492,  hanging  near  it  this  pic- 
ture will  be  found  wanting  in  many  respects.  It 
belongs  to  Paolo's  school,  not  to  the  master  himself, 
though  it  has  some  good  painting  in  it. 

498.   The  Magdalen.     The   picture   has   darkened 

much  and  is  now  hung  too  high  for  any  one  to  see 
it  properly,  but  the  largeness  of  the  figure,  the 
drapery,  and  the  hands  rather  suggest  Paolo  as 
the  author  of  it.     It  looks  much  repainted. 

500.   Sacrifice    of   Abraham.     A    Veronese    school 

piece  of  no  great  value. 

501.  Coin.  This  picture  seems  more  closely  re- 
lated to  Padovanino  than  to  Paolo  Veronese.  It 
is  not  an  important  work. 

502.    Moses  Saved  from  the  Nile.     A  sketchy  and 

*  very  charming  picture  that  is  good  enough  for  Pa- 


WEYDEN,  ROGER  VAN  DER  95 

olo  but  seems  not  strongly  characteristic  of  him, 
though  he  probably  did  it.  The  colour  is  excellent 
and  the  landscape  rather  fine.  The  glass  over  the 
picture  improves  its  tonal  effect  and  perhaps  gives 
a  false  impression. 

511.    Volterra,  Daniele  (Ricciarelli)  da.     Calvary.    A 

good  illustration  of  the  mannered  and  exaggerated 
art  which  followed  Michelangelo  and  for  which 
he  was  largely  responsible.  Everybody  and  every- 
thing here  is  posed  or  twisted  or  somehow  made  to 
exhibit  a  straight  line  breaking  a  flowing  line.  The 
composition  is  restless,  overloaded,  and  the  colours 
used  include  everything  on  the  Florentine  palette 
of  the  time. 

1887.  Weyden,  Roger  van  der.    Marriage  of  the  Virgin. 

*  A  picture  perhaps  originally  designed  as  a  diptych 
but  not  well  related,  panel  to  panel,  because  in 
slightly  different  keys  of  colour  and  light.  The 
drawing  is  somewhat  hard  and  awkward,  the  group- 
ing rather  bad,  the  values  not  particularly  well 
maintained,  the  colours  beautiful  in  themselves 
but  not  subtle  or  delicate.  The  picture  has  hardly 
the  passion  or  the  power  that  we  expect  from  Roger, 
and  it  does  not  agree  with  the  Descent  at  the 
Escorial,  nor  the  Pieta  at  Brussels  (No.  516),  nor 
the  new  Roger  at  the  Louvre.  It  is  probably  by 
some  close  follower  of  the  Van  Eycks  (not  Roger), 
as  the  types  of  the  Madonna,  the  white-cowled 
women  back  of  her,  the  man  at  right  with  the  red 
hat  seem  to  indicate.  The  figures  on  the  reverse 
apparently  confirm  this.  Assigned  by  some  to  the 
Master  of  Flemalle. 

1888.    The  Crucifixion.    The  central  panel  of  a  trip- 

*  tych  that  has  been  much  talked  about  and  is  of 


96  THE  PRADO 

interest  in  art  history.  The  central  figures  are 
certainly  profound  and  passionate  in  feeling.  The 
St.  John  is  particularly  fine.  The  drawing  is  angu- 
lar, the  modelling  hard,  the  figures  attenuated  in 
the  hands  and  feet  and  cramped  in  the  body  of  the 
Christ.  The  drapery  is  a  little  freer.  The  church 
at  the  back  keeps  its  place  well  enough  as  a  back- 
ground but  is  too  full  of  material.  The  colour  is 
rich,  varied,  very  handsome.  The  Gothic  framing 
of  the  central  figures,  showing  smaller  scenes  from 
the  life  of  Christ,  is,  perhaps,  a  little  confusing. 
Their  bright  spots  of  colour  seem  insufficiently 
subordinated  to  the  central  figures.  Moreover, 
these  small  scenes  seem  done  by  a  different  hand 
from  the  one  that  did  the  larger  figures.  Perhaps 
Roger  did  only  the  larger  figures,  and  his  pupils  or 
assistants  put  in  the  smaller  groups,  and  then, 
again,  perhaps  it  is  all  school  work.  It  is  not  diffi- 
cult to  give  a  cock-sure  opinion  here,  but  then  it 
might  not  be  correct. 

1889.   Adam  and  Eve.    This  is  the  left  wing  of  No. 

*  1888.  There  are  slight  but  graceful  figures  passing 
out  of  the  gate  of  Paradise — the  garden  being 
shown  at  the  back  and  the  angel  with  the  flaming 
sword  at  the  top.  The  Gothic  framing,  with  scenes 
from  the  Creation,  repeats  in  a  slighter  way  that 
of  No.  1888  and  is  again  apparently  by  pupils  or 
assistants  of  Roger. 

1891.    The  Last  Judgment,    This  is  the  right  wing 

*  of  No.  1888.  Again  one  sees  the  tragic  passion  of 
the  Judgment,  the  sorrow  of  the  Christ,  the  amaze- 
ment of  those  below,  the  terror  of  the  damned. 
There  is  a  feeling,  an  intensity  about  it  that  is  not 
seen  in  ordinary  Last  Judgments — a  feeling  that 


WEYDEN,  ROGER  VAN  DER  97 

belongs  alone  to  Roger  van  der  Weyden  or,  at 
least,  is  seen  only  in  pictures  ascribed  to  him.  The 
Gothic  framing  with  small  figures  surrounds  the 
panel,  as  in  No.  1889,  and  shows  again  a  differ- 
ent hand  from  the  one  that  did  the  central  figures. 
On  the  reverse  of  these  wings  are  figures  in  grisaille. 

1886.   Crucifixion,    This  is  a  small  picture  but  is,  per- 

**  haps,  the  most  satisfactory  Van  der  Weyden  here. 
The  feeling  of  it  is  intense.  All  the  figures  are  in 
the  depths  of  woe,  even  the  less  demonstrative 
John.  The  drapery  of  the  figures  is  beautifully 
done,  and  the  colour  of  the  picture  is  superb.  No- 
tice the  beautiful  landscape  at  the  back.  At  the 
bottom  is  the  false  monogram  of  Albrecht  Diirer, 
with  the  date,  1513.  Compare  this  picture  with 
the  large  Descent  (No.  1893)  here  to  get  an  idea 
of  Roger  van  der  Weyden  and  his  work.  This 
No.  1886  belongs  in  the  same  class  as  the  Pieta 
at  Brussels  (No.  516).  By  comparison  with  No. 
1888  it  makes  the  latter  seem  more  certainly  by 
the  school  rather  than  by  the  master  himself. 

1893.   Deposition,     The  catalogue  puts  it  down  as 

*  a  copy  by  Coxcie  after  the  picture  at  the  Escorial, 
but  there  may  be  some  doubt  about  this.  The 
No.  1894,  another  copy,  may  be  by  Coxcie,  but 
this  one  seems  good  enough  for,  say,  a  replica. 
There  is  no  hesitation,  timidity,  or  weakness  about 
it.  At  any  rate,  in  the  absence  of  the  Escorial  orig- 
inal the  student  should  study  it  as  a  Roger.  It  is 
a  large  and  very  important  picture — in  fact,  too 
large  for  a  man  trained  in  the  miniature  manner  of 
the  Van  Eycks.  It  lacks  the  decorative  charm, 
the  jewel-like  quality  of  colour  of  his  smaller 
works.     Moreover,  the  large  figures  in  their  angu- 


98  THE  PRADO 

larity  of  line  strike  the  eye  more  abruptly  than  the 
smaller  figures.  They  have  no  grace  of  linear  com- 
position in  an  Italian  sense,  no  rhythmic  repetition, 
no  fine  plastic  pattern.  They  are  ponderous,  op- 
pressive, heavy.  And  this  in  spite  of  the  passion, 
the  pathos,  the  dramatic  power.  The  picture 
(either  here  or  at  the  Escorial)  is  a  notable  work, 
but,  like  many  other  attempts  at  doing  something 
large,  it  perhaps  falls  short  of  that  perfect  achieve- 
ment which  comes  to  artists,  oftentimes  in  their 
least  pretentious  essays. 

1236.    Zurbaran,  Francisco  de.     Vision  of  St.  Peter, 

*  The  angel  is  a  charming  piece  of  colour  if  rather 
weak  in  drawing.  And  what  very  good  draperies! 
The  vision  opening  at  the  left  is  more  or  less  dis- 
turbing. Zurbaran  was,  perhaps,  the  best  painter 
in  the  School  of  Seville,  despite  the  wide  reputa- 
tion of  his  younger  contemporary,  Murillo. 

1239.  St.  Casilda,  It  is  ill  drawn  and  hard  in  mod- 
elling, but  it  has  originality  of  conception  and  some 
further  invention  in  the  matter  of  colour.  It  is 
not  a  tame  repetition  of  things  Italian. 


INDEX  OF  PICTURES  BY  NUMBERS 


15.   Angelico,  Fra. 

379 

20.    Basaiti. 

386 

45.    Bassano,  L. 

388 

50.    Bellini,  Giovanni. 

389 

Tintoretto 

57.   Michelangelo    Buonar- 

390 

roti. 

393- 

69.   Girolamo  da  Carpi. 

399 

J}^|  Correggio. 

407- 
415 

143.    Francia,  G. 

417- 

240.   Lotto. 

422 

-JLuini. 

425- 
432 

248.    Mantegna. 

434 

Titian. 

262.    Moroni. 

435 

269.    Palma  Vecchio. 

437- 

279  1 

2gQ  1  Parmigianino. 

440 
442- 

287.   Pontormo. 

445 

289  1  Po^^^^o^®* 
29^}  Raphael. 
323.   Romano,  Giulio. 
oqo      Sarto,  Andrea  del. 

448 
482 

483 
484 
486 
491 

492 
497 

Veronese,  P, 

345.    Piombo,  S.  del. 

498 

356.   Tiepolo,  D. 

500 

^^}Tiepolo,G.B. 

501 
502 

100 


INDEX 


504.   Leonardo  da  Vinci. 
511.    Volterra. 

^25  I  Umbrian  School. 
^I^JBerruguete. 
Cano. 


627 
629 
642 
645 
646 
648 
705- 
710 
80&- 
812 
820 
822 
824 
825 
827 
838- 
842 
855 
888 
889 
943 
946 
961- 
965 
972 
974 
975 
978 
979 
988 
993 
1022- 
1025 


Carrefio  de  Miranda. 


Gallegos. 


>  Greco,  II. 


Juanes,  J.  de. 


Mazo. 


Morales. 


Murillo. 


Pacheco. 


1031 

1033 

Pantoja  de  la  Cruz. 

1037 

1062  \ 
1065/ 

Ribalta. 

1069 

1078 
1101 

Ribera. 

1115 

1136 

1140 

Coello,  Sanchez. 

1144 

1159.   Tristan. 

1166- 

1174 
1176- 

Velasquez. 

1211 

1214.    Mazo. 

1224.   Velasquez. 

J|6}z„,baran. 

1298.   Spanish  School. 

1317.   Pereda  y  Salgado. 

1361.   Bles. 

1430.   Brueghel    the    Elder, 

Jan. 

1461.   Christus. 

1473 

1474 

1475 

1477- 

1481 

Dyck,  A.  van. 

1483 

1486- 

1489 

1493 

1510.   Eyck,  H.  van. 

1511. 

Eyck,  J.  van. 

INDEX 


101 


Master  of  FMmaUe.  Jg^g  |  Veen,Van. 


1513 
1514 

JI^^Gossart. 

1542.   Hemessen. 

1543^ 

1544 

1546 

1547 

1550 

1557.  Memling. 

1559.  Metsys. 


>  Jordaens. 


Patinir. 


1611- 

1617 

1637 

1638 

1640 

1642 

1644 

1645 

1650 

1658- 

1665 

1667- 

1674 

1677- 

1679 

1685 

1687- 

1693 

1796.  Teniers. 


Rubens. 


Weyden,  R.  van  der. 


Flemish  School. 


1858 

1859 

1886- 

1889 

1891 

1893 

1915 

1920 

1921 

1930 

1932 

1933 

1936 

2048 

2053 

2078.  Dou 

21071 

2108 

2110 

2111 

2114, 

2131.  Potter. 

2132.  Rembrandt. 
2177-  ' 
2180 

2182.  Holbein. 
2219" 
2220 
2254 
2269 


Bosch. 


>  More 


Diirer. 


German  School. 
Claude  Lorraine. 


UNIVEESITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 

STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


FEB8@19?0 


oci  m  tm 


50?n-7.'16 


VA  01 100 


393599 


UNTVERSJTV  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARV 


